Smith v. Wheatland Tube Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Smith v. Wheatland Tube Co.

165 A.2d 76, 401 Pa. 427

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedNovember 15, 1960

DocketAppeal, 191

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 165 A.2d 76 (Smith v. Wheatland Tube 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

Smith v. Wheatland Tube Co., 165 A.2d 76, 401 Pa. 427 (Pa. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The events which brought about this lawsuit, as narrated in the opinion of the court below, demonstrate quite clearly that the question of contributory negligence was one of fact for the jury.

The position taken by the plaintiff on the trailer, in the conscientious discharge of the duties which were part of his job, was not so obviously perilous that it can be said, as a matter of law, that he contributed to the misfortune which befell him.

Nor can it be declared, as a matter of law, that the plaintiffs remark to his fellow-employee: “Get out of there, that man is going to kill you,” revealed an acknowledgment of mortal danger. The words were an obvious exaggeration. Certainly, Donald G. Smith had no notion that the crane operator intended to kill Mc-Featers or anyone else. It was the kind of an expression often used among workmen to suggest sloppy operation and in no way to be associated with homicidal action, criminal or accidental.

Under these circumstances, the trial court should have submitted the question of the plaintiffs alleged contributory negligence to the jury, together with the question of defendant’s negligence.

Reversed with a procedendo.

Mr. Justice Bell dissents.

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

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The events which brought about this lawsuit, as narrated in the opinion of the court below, demonstrate quite clearly that the question of contributory negligence was one of fact for the jury.

The position taken by the plaintiff on the trailer, in the conscientious discharge of the duties which were part of his job, was not so obviously perilous that it can be said, as a matter of law, that he contributed to the misfortune which befell him.

Nor can it be declared, as a matter of law, that the plaintiffs remark to his fellow-employee: “Get out of there, that man is going to kill you,” revealed an acknowledgment of mortal danger. The words were an obvious exaggeration. Certainly, Donald G. Smith had no notion that the crane operator intended to kill Mc-Featers or anyone else. It was the kind of an expression often used among workmen to suggest sloppy operation and in no way to be associated with homicidal action, criminal or accidental.

Under these circumstances, the trial court should have submitted the question of the plaintiffs alleged contributory negligence to the jury, together with the question of defendant’s negligence.

Reversed with a procedendo.

Mr. Justice Bell dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 A.2d 76, 401 Pa. 427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-wheatland-tube-co-pa-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack