Leotti v. Philadelphia Macaroni Co.

Citations

• 257 Pa. 583
• 101 A. 802
• 1917 Pa. LEXIS 783

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Master and servant — Elevators—Workman in elevator pit — Descent of elevator — Trials—Motion to strike off statement of claim — Remarks of counsel — Reference to former trial — Remark unprejudicial — Qase for jury — Motion to withdraw a juror.</p> <p>1. In an action by an employee against an employer to recover for personal injuries occasioned by the descent upon plaintiff of an elevator while he was working in an elevator pit, the case was for the jury and a verdict and judgment for plaintiff will be' sustained where the evidence was conflicting as to whether plaintiff had gone into the pit with the assurance of defendant’s engineer that a man would be stationed at the floor above to see that the elevator did not descend, or had gone into the pit in disregard of the engineer’s instructions not to do so until the latter’s return when he himself would operate the elevator and make certain plaintiff’s safety.</p> <p>2. Where on a former trial of such case the plaintiff, while being cross-examined through an interpreter, was questioned as to inconsistencies between his testimony and certain averments in the statement of claim, and, apparently thinking the examiner was endeavoring to entrap him, had denied the genuineness of his own signature to the statement, a motion at the subsequent trial to strike off the statement for such reason was properly dismissed where defendant’s counsel, when the statement was then placed before plaintiff and he was questioned as to the genuineness of the signature, objected to the inquiry as “immaterial,” stating that there is “no objection now,” especially where both the notary public who took the affidavit and plaintiff’s attorney had testified as to the genuineness of the signature, and plaintiff on direct examination at the former trial had also testified as to its genuineness.</p> <p>3. In such case the trial judge properly refused to affirm defendant’s point for charge that the verdict should be for the defendant “if