McClure v. Pennsylvania Railroad
Citations
- 53 Pa. Super. 638
- 1913 Pa. Super. LEXIS 233
Syllabus
<p>Negligence — Railroads—Master and, servant — Fellow servant — Act of April 4, 1868, P. L. 68.</p> <p>1. In an action against a railroad company to recover damages for personal injuries it appeared that the plaintiff at the time of the accident had been in the employ of a manufacturing company for one day and was without special knowledge of the premises where he was injured. At the time of the accident he was employed in shoveling ashes which had accumulated on his employer’s sidewalk at a point where a spur track extended from the railroad to the manufacturing company’s plant. While so employed a locomotive started to cross the sidewalk without warning to plaintiff. When it was within eight feet of him plaintiff jumped to a position of refuge where he was safe in so far as the wheels of the engine were concerned but where he was caught on the return of the engine by the overhang of one of the cars which it was drawing from the yard. The evidence tended to show that the defendant’s employees were familiar with the place, saw the plaintiff in his position of danger, and failed to warn him. Held, (1) that the question of the defendant’s negligence was for the jury, and (2) that the plaintiff was not a fellow servant of the defendant’s employees within the meaning of the Act of April 4,1868, P. L. 58, then in force.</p> <p>Negligence — Release—Joint tort feasors.</p> <p>2. A release of damages for personal injuries given by an employee to his employer in consideration of a voluntary payment to him of the sum of $75.00 will not be a bar to a recovery against a railroad company whose negligence was the cause of the injuries, where it appears that the payment was made without any prior suit or demand, that the injuries were serious and that the employer was not guilty of any joint or separate act of negligence, which contributed to the injuries in question.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- accepting evidence where witness was able to identify a prior certification signed by him and testify that, based on the prior signing, the certification was accurate
- accepting evidence where witness was able to identify a prior certification signed by him and testify that, based on the prior signing, the certification was accurate
- accepting evidence where witness was able to identify a prior certification signed by him and testify that, based on the prior signing, the certification was accurate
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Head, Henderson, Morrison, Orlady, Porter, Rice
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.