Velas v. Patton Coal Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Velas v. Patton Coal Co., 197 Pa. 380 (Pa. 1900)
47 A. 360; 1900 Pa. LEXIS 749
Bbown, Dean, Fell, McCollum, Mestbezat, Mitchell, Potteb

Velas v. Patton Coal Co.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

It is well settled that if no exception is taken to the form of a reservation at the trial the parties are bound by it and cannot be heard in the appellate court against it: Mohan v. Butler, 112 Pa. 591; Boyle v. Mahanoy City, 187 Pa. 1; Rynd v. Baker, 193 Pa. 486. In the case at bar no exception to the form of the reservation was taken at the trial, and therefore the parties are bound by it as above stated.

It is alleged by the plaintiff that the order of which he complains was given to him by the mine foreman, who was his fellow-servant. There is no evidence in the case that the superintendent participated in any manner in the direction or control of the work in which the plaintiff was engaged. Indeed it is at least doubtful whether the superintendent was present or in hearing when the order was given, or the injury to the plaintiff was received. If, therefore, there was any negligence which caused the accident, it was the negligence of the mine foreman, of the plaintiff, or of both. There is no evidence in the case on which negligence can be charged against the Patton Coal *384Company or its superintendent. It follows that the defendant company is not chargeable for the injury the plaintiff received. We therefore affirm the judgment on the opinion and decree of the learned court below.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name
Velas v. Patton Coal Company
Cited By
3 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
Practice, G. P.— Reservation of point of law—Exception. If no exception is taken to the form of a reservation of a question of law at the trial, the parties are bound by it, and cannot be heard in the appellate court against it. Negligence—Master and servant—Fellow-servant—Mines and mining. In an action by a coal miner against his employer, a coal company, to recover damages for personal injuries, the case should not be submitted to the juiy, where the evidence shows that the order under which the plaintiff was working at the time of the accident was given by the mine foreman, and that it was at least doubtful whether the superintendent of the mine was present or in hearing when the order was given, or when the injury to the plaintiff was received.