Van v. Richmond

Citations

• 259 Pa. 300
• 102 A. 954
• 1918 Pa. LEXIS 409

Syllabus

<p>Master and servant — Bricklayer—Fall of brick arch on workman —Assumption of risk — Contributory negligence — Conflicting evidence — Preponderance of evidence with defendant — Case for jury.</p> <p>1. The credibility of oral testimony is for the jury.</p> <p>2. Where the testimony offered by the plaintiff makes out a prima facie case by showing the existence of facts from which an inference of negligence arises, the case is necessarily for the jury, notwithstanding that the great preponderance of the testimony is with the defendant. An inference of negligence having once arisen remains until overcome by countervailing proof, and whether it is so overcome is a question.for the jury.</p> <p>3. In an action against building contractors to recover for injuries sustained by the falling of a brick arch on a workman, where it appeared that during the construction of the building plaintiff was assigned by the defendants to build such arch on a supporting wooden form erected by defendants’ carpenters, that after the completion of the arch it fell on the plaintiff causing the injuries complained of, and the evidence was conflicting as to how the fall of the arch was occasioned, plaintiff’s version being that the form had been removed at the direction of. defendants’ foreman, that plaintiff had complained to him of its removal but that the foreman had assured him that it was safe, that relying upon the foreman’s forty years’ experience plaintiff continued at his work and three quarters of an hour later the arch fell, while defendants’ version was that the form had not been removed but that the arch fell by reason of plaintiff’s placing his body or leg over it, causing it to buckle, and that plaintiff had admitted thereafter that the occurrence was his own fault, the court did not err in refusing to charge that as a matter of law plaintiff had assumed the risk.</p> <p>4. In such ease the court did not err in refusing to charge that the duty rested on the plaintiff to establi