Chambers v. Mesta Machine Co.

Citations

• 251 Pa. 618
• 97 A. 101
• 1916 Pa. LEXIS 516

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Master and servant — Fellow servant rule — Expert testimony — rCase for jury.</p> <p>1. Where facts are of a character that render them susceptible of full and adequate development so that their bearing upon the issues involved can reasonably be estimated by a jury, expert testimony or testimony in the nature thereof is not essential, and therefore not admissible.</p> <p>2. In a negligence case evidence of customary methods pursued in like establishments may be offered by a defendant to disprove negligence, but such evidence is only admissible to prove the plaintiff’s case, when it tends to show that the customary method pursued in defendant’s establishment was not only unusual but more dangerous in itself than the ordinary one.</p> <p>»3. In an action against a machine company to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by an employee, the ease was for the jury and judgment for the defendant n. o. v. was erroneously entered where it appeared that plaintiff was injured in defendant’s shop by the fall of a casting from a crane, that the casting had been improperly attached to the crane, not by the person usually charged with that duty, hut by a machinist who was engaged in employment similar to plaintiff’s, and there was evidence from which it could be inferred that the machinist had been directed by the foreman to attach castings when the regular “hookers-on” were not at hand, and that he was not experienced in such work and had not been instructed therein.</p> <p>Practice, G. P. — Motion for judgment n. o. v. — Motion for new trial.</p> <p>4. Where motions for judgment non obstante veredicto and for a new trial are pending the proper practice is to dispose of the motion for a new trial before entering judgment on the motion for judgment non obstante veredicto.</p>