Christman v. Phila. R.

Citations

• 141 Pa. 604
• 21 A. 738
• 1891 Pa. LEXIS 1111

Syllabus

<p>[To be reported.]</p> <p>(a) An employee of an iron company was engaged in carrying to its mill a lot of bar-iron, unloaded the day before from a railroad car, and piled up between the two tracks of a private siding on the iron company’s ground. The siding was connected with two railroads, by each of which freight was shipped to and from the mill:</p> <p>1. In an action by the employee against one of the railroad companies, for personal injuries caused by negligence in shifting its cars, and received by the plaintiff while so carrying the iron, the question whether the siding was the “ premises ” of the defendant, within the meaning of § 1, act of April 4, 1868, P. L. 58, was immaterial.</p> <p>2. For, as the plaintiff was not employed in any business connected with the railroad, and his work had no connection with the prior unloading of the iron, he was not within the provisions of said act: Richter v. Penna. Co., 104 Pa. 511, followed; Cummings v. Railway Co., 92 Pa. 83; Balt. etc. R. Co. v. Colvin, 118 Pa. 230; Stone v. Railroad Co., 132 Pa. 206, distinguished.</p> <p>Under the circumstances of this case, the court could not declare the plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence, as a matter of law: how long he might prudently continue at work, after seeing the shifting engine pass, and what degree of observation was incumbent upon him, depended upon too many elements to enable, the court to apply a fixed standard of duty.</p>