Montgomery v. Rowe

Citations

• 239 Pa. 321
• 86 A. 923
• 1913 Pa. LEXIS 565

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Master and servant — Safe means of access — Building operation — Elevator—Burden of proof — Failure to show specific act of negligence — Nonsuit.</p> <p>1. Except in the case of a common carrier the uniform rule is that, where recovery is sought on the ground of the negligence of the defendant, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, and, in an action against an employer, some specific act of negligence must be, shown.</p> <p>2. In an action by a bricklayer against his employer to recover damages for personal injuries, a nonsuit is properly entered where no more appears by the plaintiffs case than that after completing his. work upon an upper story of a building which defendant was erecting, he stepped upon an elevator which the employees were in the habit of using in going to and from the upper stories; that upon the usual signal to the engineer below that workmen were upon it who wished to descend, it immediately started down, with increasing velocity, until it struck the ground with such force that plaintiff was thrown out and injured; and it further appeared that there was a friction brake on the elevator by which it could have been controlled, there being no evidence of any defect of any kind in the elevator and none which would justify a finding that it was unsafe for the employees to use in going to and from their work, if the engineer who operated it — not shown to have been incompetent — had properly performed his duty.</p>