O'Neill v. Venango Manufacturing Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

O'Neill v. Venango Manufacturing Co.

96 A. 478, 251 Pa. 182, 1915 Pa. LEXIS 653

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 28, 1915

DocketAppeal, No. 104

StatusPublished

This text of 96 A. 478 (O'Neill v. Venango Manufacturing Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

O'Neill v. Venango Manufacturing Co., 96 A. 478, 251 Pa. 182, 1915 Pa. LEXIS 653 (Pa. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The negligence with which the plaintiff charged the defendant, and of which it was found guilty by a jury, was its failure to comply with the requirement of Section 12 of the Act of May 2,1905, P. L. 352, that elevator wells shall be properly and substantially enclosed or guarded. Whether there had been a compliance by the defendant with the terms of the statute, and, if not, whether its failure to comply was the proximate cause of the injuries sustained by the plaintiff, were questions for the jury. They were submitted in a charge in which no error appears, and a specific instruction of the learned trial judge was that, if the jury should find that O’Neill had done anything he ought not to have done, or omitted to do anything he should have done that contributed to his injury, the verdict should be for the defendant. The case could not have been taken from the jury, and nothing in the thirteen assignments of error calls for its retrial.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

The negligence with which the plaintiff charged the defendant, and of which it was found guilty by a jury, was its failure to comply with the requirement of Section 12 of the Act of May 2,1905, P. L. 352, that elevator wells shall be properly and substantially enclosed or guarded. Whether there had been a compliance by the defendant with the terms of the statute, and, if not, whether its failure to comply was the proximate cause of the injuries sustained by the plaintiff, were questions for the jury. They were submitted in a charge in which no error appears, and a specific instruction of the learned trial judge was that, if the jury should find that O’Neill had done anything he ought not to have done, or omitted to do anything he should have done that contributed to his injury, the verdict should be for the defendant. The case could not have been taken from the jury, and nothing in the thirteen assignments of error calls for its retrial.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 A. 478, 251 Pa. 182, 1915 Pa. LEXIS 653, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oneill-v-venango-manufacturing-co-pa-1915.