Snyder v. Bonbright

Citations

• 123 F. 817
• 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4945

Syllabus

<p>1. Eire Escapes—Pennsylvania Statutes—Effect of Certificate of Approval.</p> <p>The Pennsylvania fire escape act of 1879 (P. L. 128) requires the owner of every factory, or other building of a certain height, to provide a permanent, safe, external means of escape therefrom in case of fire; provides for its inspection by certain officers, and that, if found satisfactory, a certificate shall be issued to the owner; imposes a penalty for failure to obey the act, and also gives an action for damages against the owner to any one injured as the result of the absence of such efficient fire escape. It does not provide in terms what the effect of the certificate of approval shall be. Held, that such certificate did not raise a conclusive presumption of a compliance with the law to furnish the owner with a complete defense to an action for damages under the act, but that its only effect was to protect the owner against liability for the penalty.</p> <p>2. Same—Effect of Indorsement on Certificate.</p> <p>A certificate having been issued under such act, an indorsement was made thereon in 1887, approving the ropes and chains which had been supplied by the owner in compliance with an amendatory act. Beld, that such indorsement did not make the certificate effective as one issued as of that date under a second amendatory act, passed in 1885, which required stairways on certain kinds of buildings, and made the certificates issued thereunder conclusive evidence of a compliance with the act, but that its effect as evidence remained the same as before.</p> <p>3. Same—Proviso in Statute Construed.</p> <p>The amendatory act of 1885 (P. L. 68) provided that where more than 100 operatives were employed there must be provided at least two fire escapes, and more if required to secure speedy and safe escape, but con-tained a proviso “that nothing in this act shall interfere with fire escapes now in use approved by the proper authorities.” Held, that such proviso did not exempt the owner