Pistoner v. American Can Co.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania

Pistoner v. American Can Co.

119 F. 496, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 5306

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania

DecidedDecember 11, 1902

DocketNo. 60

StatusPublished

This text of 119 F. 496 (Pistoner v. American Can Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pistoner v. American Can Co., 119 F. 496, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 5306 (circtedpa 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

DALLAS, Circuit Judge..

Two grounds are urged in support of the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, which should not be confounded, but be separately considered. It is contended, first, that a certain John Markowitz was not a fellow servant of the plaintiff, but was a vice principal; and, second, that the injury suffered by the plaintiff resulted from thé failure of the defendant to maintain reasonably safe machinery for use by the plaintiff.

I. Upon the first of these questions I am still of the opinion which I entertained upon the trial. I think the court would not have been justified in holding that Markowitz, by reason of his employment as foreman of the room in which the accident occurred, was to be regarded as representative of the defendant company itself.

2. The duty which the defendant owed to the plaintiff, to exercise such care as an ordinarily prudent man would exercise to keep its machinery in safe condition, imposed a responsibility which it could not shift to Markowitz or to any one. The obligation was_ absolute. Had it been fulfilled? This question was submitted to the jury, and, in my opinion, its submission, and the jury’s finding upon it, were both correct.

The motion for a new trial is denied.

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

DALLAS, Circuit Judge..

Two grounds are urged in support of the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, which should not be confounded, but be separately considered. It is contended, first, that a certain John Markowitz was not a fellow servant of the plaintiff, but was a vice principal; and, second, that the injury suffered by the plaintiff resulted from thé failure of the defendant to maintain reasonably safe machinery for use by the plaintiff.

I. Upon the first of these questions I am still of the opinion which I entertained upon the trial. I think the court would not have been justified in holding that Markowitz, by reason of his employment as foreman of the room in which the accident occurred, was to be regarded as representative of the defendant company itself.

2. The duty which the defendant owed to the plaintiff, to exercise such care as an ordinarily prudent man would exercise to keep its machinery in safe condition, imposed a responsibility which it could not shift to Markowitz or to any one. The obligation was_ absolute. Had it been fulfilled? This question was submitted to the jury, and, in my opinion, its submission, and the jury’s finding upon it, were both correct.

The motion for a new trial is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 F. 496, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 5306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pistoner-v-american-can-co-circtedpa-1902.