Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

.

.

[ocr errors]

36

.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

.

.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

.

518 · 508

.

.

Giordano vs. Brandywine Granite
Co.

423 Guarantee Friendly Fund, etc., vs. Henderson.

157 Guardian Savings and Loan Association, Hibbert vs. .

· 591 H. Hall, Darby vs.

25 Harper & Co. vs. Baird's Admrs . 110 Hart, Miller vs.

297 Hatton vs. Wil. City Ry. Co. . .159 Henderson, Guarantee Friendly Fund, etc., vs.

157 Henderson, Pritchard vs.

128 Hertel & Co., Danforth vs. 57 Hibbert vs. Guardian Savings and Loan Association

591 Higgins vs. Mayor and Council . 356 Hobson, DuRoss vs.

445 Home Loan Association vs. Foard 165 Hood, State vs.

418 Husbands vs. Talley

88 I. In re Biederman .

284 In re Levy

5 In re Mundy

282 In re Tomer, Rash and Sutton 31

J. Jackson, State vs.

15 Jefferson, St. Georges Marsh Co. vs. 241 Johnson Forge Co. vs. Leonard & Co.

342 Johnson Forge Co., Leonard & Co.

104 Jones vs. Jones Journal Printing Co. vs. Duplex

Printing Press Co. Jump vs. Jones

163 K. Kelley, Dickerson vs.

69 Kelley vs. Kelley

286 L.

Leonard & Co. vs. Johnson Forge
Co.

104 Leonard, Joboson Forge Co. vs. 342 Levy, Samuel J., In re

5 Lessee of Caulk vs. Caulk .

528 Lewis vs. Scanlan

. 238 Love, Barnesville Mfg. Co. vs. . • 569 Love & Hornaday vs. P. & J. Co. . 577 Love vs. Barnesville Mfg. Co. 152 Lynn, State vs.

316 M. MacFarlane vs. Garrett & Barr. Magnell, State vs.

307 Mayor and Council, Higgins vs. : 356 Mayor and Council, Weldin vs.

472 May, Smith et al. vs.

. 233 Middletown Academy vs. Cochran 56 Miller vs. Hart

297 Miller, State vs. Mills, et. al., State vs. . Mitchell vs. Yerger & White . 87 Money Weight Scale Co. vs. Ed. wards et al

85 Mundy, In re

282 V. Neal's Admr. vs. W. & N, C. E. Ry.

. 467 Norkewicz, State vs.

299 0. Oxy-hydrogen Co. vs. Simmons et al.

291 P. Parker, Davis vs.

29 Patzowski, Carswell vs. . . 593 Pennsylvania R. R. Co., Thomas vs. 81 P. W. & B. R. R., Tully vs. 455 Potts vs. Wells.

II Pratt, State vs.

264 Pritchard vs. Henderson .

128 Pullen, State vs.

184 Pusey & Jones Co., Croker vs. Pusey & Jones Co. vs. Dodge 63

Q. Q. A. R. R., Chorman vs. 407 Q. A. R. R., Chorman's Admr. vs. 417

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

State, Zuchowski vs.

339 Strattner vs. Wil. City Electric Co.

245, 453 Sutton, Tomer & Rash, In re 31 Szymanski vs. Blumenthal & Co. 558

T. Talley, Husbands vs.

88 Thomas vs. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. 81 Tomer, Rash and Sutton, In re . 31 Truitt vs. Cullen .

311 Truitt & Bro. vs. Fabey .

573 Tulley vs. P. W. & B. R. R..

455

[ocr errors]

.

.

W.

VS.

[ocr errors]

.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

.

.

II

218

[ocr errors]

.

.

St. Georges Marsh Co. vs. Jefferson 241 St. Joseph's Soc. vs. St. Hedwig's Church.

229 Sayers vs. W. & N. R. R. Co.

249 Scanlan, Lewis vs.

. 238 Simmons et al., Oxy-Hydrogen Co.

291 Simpson, Covington vs.

269 Smith et al. vs. May

233 Snow, State vs.

259 Stanert & Dolbey, Ellison vs. 45 Star Publishing Co., Donahoe vs. . 545 State vs. Briscoe . .

7 State vs. Churchman

167, 361 State vs. Conlan State vs. Davis

220 State vs. Deputy

19 State vs. Fahey

594 State vs. Freedman.

403 State vs. Hood

418 State vs. Jackson.

15 State vs. Lynn .

316 State vs. Magnell.

307 State vs. Miller

518 State vs. Mills, et al.,

508 State vs. Norkewicz

299 State vs. Pratt.

264 State vs. Pullen

184 State vs. Reiman.

73 State vs. Rollo

421 State vs. Snow.

259 State, Wilson vs.

305

Wagner vs. Wagner

· 303 Wanamaker vs. Benn .

. 188 Weisman & Dunn vs. Fire Ins. Co. 224 Weldin vs. Mayor and Council . 472 Wells, Potts vs. Wil. City Electric Co., Strattner vs.

245, 453 Wil. City Ry. Co., Hatton vs. .159 Wil. City Ry., Betts vs.

. 448 W. & N. C. E. Ry., Adams vs. 512 W. &. N. C. E. Ry., Farley vs.

581 W. &. N. C. E. Ry., Neal's Admr. VS.

. 467 W. & N. R. R. Co., Sayers vs. 249 Wilson vs. Furey

278 Wilson vs, State .

• 305 White & Yerger, Mitchell vs. 87 Wood vs. Dickerson

23 Woolley vs. Corbit

501

.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

SPRING SESSIONS,

1900,

JAMES A. CROKER, JR., Administrator of James F. Lawless, vs.

THE PUSEY & JONES COMPANY, a corporation of the State of Delaware.

Case-Personal Injuries Resulting in Death-Primary Duty of Master-Safe Tools or Machinery- Negligence-A8

sumption of Risk- Measure of Damages.

2.

1. It is a primary duty of the master to provide suitable and reasonably safe tools and machinery for the servant. If he fail to do this, he is liable for the injury resu from such failure. In the performance of this duty the master must use all reasonable care and prudence for the safety of the servant, having regard to the character of the work to be performed. Such care must be in proportion to the danger of the employment. The servant has the right to rely on the master for the performance of this duty, without inquiry on his part.

The choice of tools and machinery lies with the master. It is not necessary that they should be the latest, the newest, the most improved, the safest or the best. The true test is not that others use like tools and machinery, but whether they are reasonably suitable and safe for the work to be done, and such as reasonably careful and prudent men would use under like circumstances.

3. Where the death of the servant is caused by the negligence of the master, the measure of damages, in a suit by the administrator of the deceased, would be such a sum as the jury believe the deceased would probably have earned in his business during his life, and left as his estate ; taking into consideration the age of the deceased, his ability and disposition to labor, and habits of living and expenditures. In this the jury should be governed by the reasonable rules governing human experience in the acquisition and retention of property, under the circumstances and environments surrounding such a life.

(March 3, 1900.)

LORE, C. J., and PENNEWILL and BOYCE, J. J., sitting.

William S. Hilles and Harry P. Joslyn for plaintiff.

CHARGE.

James W. Ponder and Walter H. Hayes for defendant.

Superior Court, New Castle County, February Term, 1900.

ACTION ON THE CASE (No. 151, February, 1898), brought by the administrator of James F. Lawless, deceased, to recover from the defendant company damages for the death of the said deceased, alleged to have been caused by reason of the negligence of the defendant company in not providing a reasonably safe derrick with which to perform the work in which said deceased was engaged.

Further facts appear in the charge of the Court.

LORE, C. J., charging the jury:

Gentlemen of the jury: It is not disputed in this case,

that James F. Lawless, the plaintiff's intestate, was killed on the tenth day of December, 1897, in this city in the yard of the Pusey & Jones Company, the defendant. That his death was caused by being struck in the back by the mast end of the boom or arm of the derrick, which broke loose and fell upon him, while he was working at the foot of the derrick, in the employment and about the work of said company.

It is claimed by the plaintiff, that the derrick was not suitable in construction, or reasonably safe for raising or moving large and heavy boat ribs and frames, the purpose for which it was being used at the time of the accident; that the defendant company is liable, because it failed to perform one of the primary duties of the master, in that it did not provide a reasonably safe machine with which to perform that particular work.

The defendant, on the other hand, claims that the derrick was properly constructed and reasonably safe.

The range of your iniquiry, therefore, is this: was that derrick a reasonably safe machine, for the purpose for which it was being used at the time of the accident.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »