Ott v. General Fire Extinguisher Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Ott v. General Fire Extinguisher Co.

75 A. 591, 226 Pa. 337, 1910 Pa. LEXIS 766

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 3, 1910

DocketAppeal, No. 101

StatusPublished

This text of 75 A. 591 (Ott v. General Fire Extinguisher 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

Ott v. General Fire Extinguisher Co., 75 A. 591, 226 Pa. 337, 1910 Pa. LEXIS 766 (Pa. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The plaintiff’s husband was employed by the defendant to superintend the installing of an automatic fire extinguishing system and was killed by the falling of a tank, containing 15,000 gallons of water, which a subcontractor finder the defendant had constructed on the roof of the building. The testimony on behalf of the plaintiff tended to show that the tank fell because the steel substructure on which it rested gave way; that the substructure was defective in design and of insufficient strength to support the tank when filled with water; and that the design was an unusual one and had been selected and approved by the defendant. The court could not properly have said that under the testimony the plaintiff had not made out a case for the jury.

•The judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

The plaintiff’s husband was employed by the defendant to superintend the installing of an automatic fire extinguishing system and was killed by the falling of a tank, containing 15,000 gallons of water, which a subcontractor finder the defendant had constructed on the roof of the building. The testimony on behalf of the plaintiff tended to show that the tank fell because the steel substructure on which it rested gave way; that the substructure was defective in design and of insufficient strength to support the tank when filled with water; and that the design was an unusual one and had been selected and approved by the defendant. The court could not properly have said that under the testimony the plaintiff had not made out a case for the jury.

•The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 A. 591, 226 Pa. 337, 1910 Pa. LEXIS 766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ott-v-general-fire-extinguisher-co-pa-1910.