Reusch v. Groetzinger

43 A. 398, 192 Pa. 74, 1899 Pa. LEXIS 881
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided May 24, 1899·No. Appeal, No. 92·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Pee Ctteiam,

It is perfectly apparent from the testimony that the accident resulted from the manner in which one of the men handled his crowbar in the effort to move the large stone table. It slipped, from some cause, and as a consequence the table fell over and injured the plaintiff. It was an accident such as is likely to happen in the ordinary conduct of any business, and is one of the risks which is assumed by the workmen in taking such employment. There is no testimony in the case to show that the accident resulted from the negligence of the defendants.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Reusch v. Groetzinger, 43 A. 398, 192 Pa. 74, 1899 Pa. LEXIS 881 (Pa. 1899).

43 A. 398 (Reusch v. Groetzinger) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Blair v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad
349 Pa. 436 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1944)
Blair v. B. O. R.R. Co.
37 A.2d 736 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1944)