Case Name: Buckley, Appellant, v. Brown Hoisting Machinery Co.
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1915-01-18
Citations: 248 Pa. 63
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 222
Parties: Buckley, Appellant, v. Brown Hoisting Machinery Co.
Judges: Before Potter, Elkin, Stewart, Mosohzisker and Frazer, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 248
Pages: 63–64

Head Matter:
Buckley, Appellant, v. Brown Hoisting Machinery Co.
Negligence — Steel plates — Fall—Accident—Judgment for defendant n. o. v.
Where three workmen pulled too hard upon a rope attached to a steel plate, whereby another plate was jostled from its place and fell upon a fourth workman, the resulting injuries could not be attributed to the negligence of the employer, but were the consequence of a pure accident, and in an action against the employer for personal injuries so sustained, judgment for defendant n. o. v. was properly entered.
Argued Jan. 7, 1915.
Appeal, No. 222, Jan. T., 1914, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Philadelphia Co., Dec. T., 1910, No. 2823, entered n. o. v. in case of Frank Buckley v. Brown Hoisting Machinery Company.
Before Potter, Elkin, Stewart, Mosohzisker and Frazer, JJ.
Affirmed.
January 18, 1915:
Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Carr, J.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Verdict for plaintiff. The court subsequently entered judgment for defendant n. o. v. Plaintiff appealed.
Error assigned was in entering judgment for defendant n. o. v.
Frederick H. Warner, for appellant.
Alfred D. Wil'er, for appellee.

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
The evidence in this case clearly shows that the injury for which plaintiff sought to recover damages, was the result of an accident, pure and simple. The combined strength of three men, pulling upon a rope, was more effective than they anticipated, and a piece of steel plate was swung with too much force against another plate, which was thereby driven from its base, causing the injury. The force which they applied, was miscalculated by the men doing the work. For this their employer, the defendant company, was in no wise responsible. The court below was fully justified in entering judgment for the defendant, non obstante veredicto, and the judgment is affirmed.