Kinney v. Corbin
19 A. 141, 132 Pa. 341, 1890 Pa. LEXIS 818
Opinion
The negligence in this case was not that of the defendant company, but of Missimer, the boss or foreman, under whom the plaintiff was working, and who was, under all our cases, a fellow-workman. This was of itself sufficient to justify the learned judge below in entering a judgment of nonsuit. Aside from this, he makes out, upon the uncontradicted testimony, a very strong case of contributory negligence.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Kinney v. Corbin, 19 A. 141, 132 Pa. 341, 1890 Pa. LEXIS 818 (Pa. 1890).
19 A. 141 (Kinney v. Corbin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Pette's Admr. v. Old English Slate Quarry
96 A. 596 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1916)
McGinley v. Levering
25 A. 824 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1893)