Fritz v. Elk Tanning Co.
Citations
- 258 Pa. 180
- 101 A. 958
- 1917 Pa. LEXIS 815
Syllabus
<p>Negligence—Master and servant—Tannery — Acid fumes—Improper ventilation—Health of workman—Contributory negligence ■—Known danger—Assuming risk—-Assurance of master—Case for jury—Act of May 2,1905, P. L. §52, See. 11.</p> <p>1. Where seemingly credible evidence points directly to establish the facts upon which defendant’s liability depends, a-verdict based thereon is not the result of guess work, although such evidence is strongly contradicted by that submitted for the defense.</p> <p>2. Where plaintiff’s cause is supported by positive and substantial evidence and also by expert opinion, it must be submitted to the jury, notwithstanding the strength of the opposing proofs, and if the verdict be against the weight of the evidence, the remedy is a new trial.</p> <p>3. It is the duty of a leather tanning company, under the Act of May 2, 1905, P. L. 352, Section 11, to know the character of the fumes and gases arising in its bleach rooms, and, if such fumes are poisonous, to provide for their elimination by exhaust fans -or other sufficient devices. The provisions of the Act of 1905 are mandatory and where no attempt was made to comply with them and there is no claim that they could not have been complied with, ’and it appears that the fumes were poisonous to the workman and he was injured thereby without negligence on his part, he is entitled to recover.'</p> <p>4. In an action by an employee against a leather tanning company to recover for injuries to plaintiff’s health alleged to have resulted from inhaling poisonous fumes against which he was not protected, the case is for the jury and a verdict for the plaintiff will be sustained where it appeared that plaintiff was required to work about the vats in a bleachery, that one of his duties was to pour sulphuric acid into a vat, that he was compelled to breathe the vapor arising from the vat, that the room was poorly ventilated, especially in winter time, that when plaintiff began such work he was robust and in good h
Judges: Brown, Frazer, Mestrezat, Potter, Walling
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
7 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Francis C. O'Neill and Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. United States v. Ambrose-Augusterfer Corporation, Third-Party Francis C. O'NeillThird Circuit· 1969-05-12· cited 75×
- Boal v. Electric Storage Battery Co.Third Circuit· 1938-08-25· cited 14×
- Grammer v. Mid-Continent Petroleum CorporationTenth Circuit· 1934-05-01· cited 13×
- Kane v. Federal Match CorporationM.D. Pennsylvania· 1934-01-09· cited 9×
- McGuire v. Sherwin-Willliams Co.Seventh Circuit· 1936-12-18· cited 4×
- Wallick v. American Chain Co.York County Court of Common Pleas· 1930-07-29
- Graszkowski v. White Bros. Smelting Corp.Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas· 1933-03-03
Cites
7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Jones v. American Caramel Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1909-10-11· cited 42×
- Wagner v. H. W. Jayne Chemical Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1892-03-07· cited 36×
- Krutlies v. Bulls Head Coal Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1915-04-19· cited 25×
- Lanahan v. Arasapha Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1913-04-14· cited 10×
- Brown v. Chester Traction Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1911-02-27· cited 7×
- Kelliher v. Brown & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1914-01-05· cited 7×
- Flaherty v. Scranton Gas & Water Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1906-03-12· cited 7×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.