Sheplan v. Kramer Woodworking Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Sheplan v. Kramer Woodworking Co.

116 A. 521, 272 Pa. 518, 1922 Pa. LEXIS 859

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedFebruary 6, 1922

DocketAppeal, No. 32

StatusPublished

This text of 116 A. 521 (Sheplan v. Kramer Woodworking 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

Sheplan v. Kramer Woodworking Co., 116 A. 521, 272 Pa. 518, 1922 Pa. LEXIS 859 (Pa. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Plaintiffs sued to recover for injuries to Charles Sheplan, a ten-year-old child, alleged to have been suffered by him through defendant’s negligence. The issues involved were submitted to the jury, who found a verdict for defendant, upon which judgment was entered; plaintiffs have appealed.

Defendant manufactures articles made of wood; one of its places of business is located on North 9th Street, Philadelphia, in front of which was piled a quantity of boards and logs; one of these logs rolled upon, and injured, the minor plaintiff, while he was playing around the pile. Plaintiffs’ evidence tended to prove that the logs were so carelessly piled, that an accident of the hind here complained of was apt to happen, while defendant’s evidence showed due care, and the verdict indicates the jury believed the latter. After reading the testimony and examining the entire record, we find no reversible error.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

Plaintiffs sued to recover for injuries to Charles Sheplan, a ten-year-old child, alleged to have been suffered by him through defendant’s negligence. The issues involved were submitted to the jury, who found a verdict for defendant, upon which judgment was entered; plaintiffs have appealed.

Defendant manufactures articles made of wood; one of its places of business is located on North 9th Street, Philadelphia, in front of which was piled a quantity of boards and logs; one of these logs rolled upon, and injured, the minor plaintiff, while he was playing around the pile. Plaintiffs’ evidence tended to prove that the logs were so carelessly piled, that an accident of the hind here complained of was apt to happen, while defendant’s evidence showed due care, and the verdict indicates the jury believed the latter. After reading the testimony and examining the entire record, we find no reversible error.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 A. 521, 272 Pa. 518, 1922 Pa. LEXIS 859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheplan-v-kramer-woodworking-co-pa-1922.