Case Name: Vito, Appellant, v. West Chester, Kennett & Wilmington Electric Railway Company
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1907-04-01
Citations: 217 Pa. 398
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 219
Parties: Vito, Appellant, v. West Chester, Kennett & Wilmington Electric Railway Company.
Judges: 
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 217
Pages: 398–399

Head Matter:
Vito, Appellant, v. West Chester, Kennett & Wilmington Electric Railway Company.
Negligence — -Explosion—Railroads—-Fellow servant — Nonsuit.
A workman, engaged in excavating the roadbed of a railway, who was injured by an explosion of dynamite, cannot recover from the railroad company employing him, where the accident was caused by the negligence of a foreman or boss, who at the time of the accident was helping the plaintiff in lighting the fuses.
Submitted Feb. 11, 1907.
Appeal, No. 219, Jan. T., 1906, by plaintiff, from order of O. P. Chester Co., Aug. T., 1905, No. 20, refusing to take off nonsuit in case of Felice Vito v. West Chester, Kennett & Wilmington Electric Railway Company.-
Before Mitchell, C. J., Fell, Mestrezat, Potter and Stewart, JJ.
Affirmed.
Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Hemphill, P. J.
At the trial it appeared that at the time of the accident the plaintiff was engaged in excavating the roadbed of defendants’ railway. While so engaged he was injured by an explosion of dynamite. The testimony showed that the accident was caused by the negligent act of one Big Mike, in prematurely lighting a short fuse.
The court entered a nonsuit, saying: “ I cannot see that there is any liability here, on the part of the defendant, for this accident in any way. If anybody was responsible for it other than the plaintiff himself it was Big Mike, who was not a vice principal, nor a principal. At most he was foreman or boss, as he was called, but in this accident he was a coemployee at the time the accident happened, for which the company would not be liable. We therefore direct a nonsuit.”
Error assigned was refusal to take off nonsuit.
W. 8. Harris, for appellant.
No paper-book filed for appellee.
April 1, 1907:

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
Judgment affirmed on the opinion of the learned judge below on entering the nonsuit.