Jackson v. Pennsylvania Contracting Co.

Citations

• 55 Pa. Super. 51
• 1913 Pa. Super. LEXIS 317

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Master and servant — Defective machinery — Pleading.</p> <p>1. In an action by an employee against his employer to recover damages for personal injuries, where the statement of claim avers broadly that the accident happened by reason of the use of a defective engine, the defendant cannot complain, after a trial on the merits and a verdict against him, that the statement was not more precise in its averments. If he desired fuller information he should have applied for a more particular statement of claim.</p> <p>2. In such a case the question of the defendant’s negligence should be submitted to the jury where the evidence for the plaintiff although contradicted by that of the defendant, .and in itself somewhat contradictory, tends to show that the engine was defective as alleged, and that the defect had existed for such a period of time before the injury, that the defendant was visited with at least constructive notice of its defect.</p>