Eodice v. Edw. G. Budd Manufacturing Co.

92 Pa. Super. 103, 1927 Pa. Super. LEXIS 271
CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedOctober 5, 1927
DocketAppeal 174
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 92 Pa. Super. 103 (Eodice v. Edw. G. Budd Manufacturing Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Eodice v. Edw. G. Budd Manufacturing Co., 92 Pa. Super. 103, 1927 Pa. Super. LEXIS 271 (Pa. Ct. App. 1927).

Opinion

Opinion by

Trexler, J.,

The plaintiff was employed by the defendant company to push a truck, loaded with materials unfinished *105 or finished, to or from the operators in defendant’s factory. In some way or other, he got his hand into a machine and was injured. He did not give a very consistent narrative as to how the accident happened, but the fact that he was injured is undenied. Prior to the accident, he carried a truck load of material to a machine and unloaded it and immediately thereafter his fingers were caught and crushed.

The appellant contends that the plaintiff, having given inconsistent stories as to how the accident happened, should not be allowed his claim. One story he gave was that in passing the machine, he threw a piece of scrap metal into it and by accident caught his fingers; the other is that in passing the machine, his feet slipped on the treadle and to guard himself, his hand slipped in the die.

It matters not what the precise details of the unfortunate occurrence were, sufficient it is that the claimant was undoubtedly at the time in the course of his employment and in any view of the case, cannot properly be said to have abandoned it. The referee and the Compensation Board very properly came to this conclusion. There was sufficient evidence to establish this fact and that settles the matter. Soule v. McHenry, 286 Pa. 49.

The claimant’s injury may have been due to his negligence; there is no evidence that it was self-inflicted. His negligence would not bar his right to compensation. Section 301 of Act of June 2, 1915, P. L. 736; Gurski v. Susquehanna Coal Company, 262 Pa. 1.

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Kubes v. Hillman Coal & Coke Co.
96 Pa. Super. 340 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1929)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
92 Pa. Super. 103, 1927 Pa. Super. LEXIS 271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eodice-v-edw-g-budd-manufacturing-co-pasuperct-1927.