Pender v. Raggs

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania November 9, 1896

Pender v. Raggs, 178 Pa. 337 (Pa. 1896)

35 A. 1135; 1896 Pa. LEXIS 1174

Dean, Fell, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Sterrett, Williams

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

Plaintiff’s right to recover in this case depended on questions of fact which were for the exclusive consideration of the jury; and they were accordingly submitted to them by the learned president of the common pleas with full, clear, well guarded *342and accurate instructions, under which they rendered a'Verdict that has impliedly settled every material question of fact in plaintiff’s favor. There appears to be no error in any of the court’s rulings or instructions. The case was ably and accurately tried and the judgment entered on the verdict should not be disturbed.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: James Pender v. George Raggs, James Ramsden and George P. Kretz, Kaskel Solomon and Charles Ruben, trading as Solomon & Ruben
Cited By: 17 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Negligence — Interference by owner with work of independent contractor — Contributory negligence. In an action to recover damages for personal injuries it appeared that the defendants, the owners of a building, had entered into a contract with a builder for certain alterations and improvements on the building. The contractor was to have entire charge of the work with a condition that the defendants’ business should be interfered with as little as possible. Plaintiff was a workman employed by subcontractors. In the course of the work it became neeessaiy to build a stack near a wall. The defendants forbade the wall to be taken down, and the evidence was conflicting as to whether the work could have been done without the removal of the wall. In making an excavation the wall fell, and plaintiff was injui-ed. The evidence was conflicting as to whether the dangerous character of the wall was open and obvious, and the court submitted the question of eontnoutory negligence to the jury. Held, that the case was for the jury, and that a verdict and judgment for plaintiff should be sustained.