Clough v. Hoffman

Citations

• 132 Pa. 626
• 19 A. 299
• 1890 Pa. LEXIS 860

Syllabus

<p>1. The maintenance of an opening in the floor of a cotton mill, a means of access to a well underneath, is not negligence on the part of the owner, when he had provided a cover therefor, strong and safe when in place, had given orders that it be kept in place, and on one or two occasions, when he learned that it was not so kept, had caused it to be nailed down to the floor.*</p> <p>2. In an action by an employee for injuries received by falling into such opening, there being no evidence that the opening was left uncovered by tlie defendant or with his knowledge, and from the evidence it might have been uncovered so shortly before the accident as to have been without his knowledge, it was error to submit to the jury the question of defendant’s responsibility: Hoffman v. Clough, 124 Pa. 505, distinguished.</p>