McEwen v. Hoopes

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April 27, 1896

McEwen v. Hoopes, 175 Pa. 237 (Pa. 1896)

34 A. 623; 1896 Pa. LEXIS 1240

Dean, Fell, Green, Sterrett, Williams

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

It is contended on behalf of the plaintiff that the learned trial judge erred in not submitting this case to the jury on the testimony before them; but, our consideration of the evidence has led us to the conclusion that, if the case had been thus submitted, and the jury had found for the plaintiff, a sense of duty would have constrained the court below to set the verdict aside, especially on the ground that there was no sufficient evidence of the alleged negligence of the defendants. That being so, according to the recognized legal test in such cases, there was no error in directing a verdict in favor of the defendants.

There is nothing in either of the assignments of error that requires further discussion.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: Michael McEwen, by his Next Friend, Bernard Morrison v. Barton Hoopes, Clement R. Hoopes, Barton Hoopes, Jr., and Dawson Hoopes, trading as Hoopes & Townsend
Cited By: 2 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Negligence — Master and servant — Infant—Dangerous machine — Gleaning machine in motion. In an action by a boy fifteen years and four months old against his employers to recover damages for personal injuries, the direction of a verdict for defendants by the court is proper where the testimony shows that plaintiff was injured while cleaning a dangerous machine when it was in motion; that notices were posted in all parts of the factory that “ machinery must not be cleaned while in motion; ” and where the evidence further shows the admission of plaintiff that he knew that it was against the rules of the establishment to clean the machine while it was in motion.