Westervelt v. Dives

Citations

• 231 Pa. 548
• 80 A. 1054
• 1911 Pa. LEXIS 884

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Statutory duty — Penalty—Cumulative remedy.</p> <p>1. Where a statute imposes a duty where none existed before, the presumption is that the remedy provided therein for the breach of the duty is exclusive; but if a plain duty is imposed for the benefit of individuals, and the penalty is obviously inadequate to compel performance, the implication will be strong, if not conclusive, that the penalty was meant to be cumulative to such remedy as the common law gives when a duty owing to an individual is neglected. And if the duty imposed is obviously meant to be a duty to the public, and also to individuals, and the penalty is made payable to the state or to an informer, the right of an individual injured to maintain an action on the case for the duty owing to him will be unquestionable.</p> <p>Negligence — Elevators—Safety appliances — Act of May SO, 1895, P. L. 129 — Cumulative remedy.</p> <p>2. The penalty provided by the Act of May 30, 1895, P. L. 129, for failure to attach automatic locking devices to elevators, is not exclusive of the right of a person who is injured by reason of the neglect of the duty imposed by the statute, to maintain an action for the injuries sustained. It is immaterial that the person injured may have been a fellow servant of the operator of the elevator.</p>