Case Name: Veit v. The Class & Nachod Brewing Company, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1909-05-20
Citations: 225 Pa. 54
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 61
Parties: Veit v. The Class & Nachod Brewing Company, Appellant.
Judges: Before Mitchell, C. J., Fell, Mestrezat, Potter and Elkin, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 225
Pages: 54–55

Head Matter:
Veit v. The Class & Nachod Brewing Company, Appellant.
Negligence — Master and servant — Incompetent fellow servant — Case for jury.
In an action against a master for the death of a servant alleged to have been caused by the negligence of a fellow servant, the case is for the jury where the evidence for the plaintiff tends to show that the defendant placed in charge of a steam regulator an engineer who was known to be a man of intemperate habits, and intoxicated at the time of the accident, and where it appears that the accident resulted from excessive air pressure due to the fault of the engineer.
Argued March 24, 1909.
Appeal, No. 61, Jan. T., 1909, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., June T., 1903, No. 2,615, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Katherine Veit v. The Class & Nachod Brewing Company.
Before Mitchell, C. J., Fell, Mestrezat, Potter and Elkin, JJ.
Affirmed.
Trespass to recover damages for death of plaintiff’s husband. Before Magill, J.
May 20, 1909:
For the facts see the opinion of the Supreme Court and 216 Pa. 29.
Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $7,500. Defendant appealed.
Error assigned was in refusing binding instructions for defendant.
Thomas Raeburn White, with him W. W. Smithers, for appellant.
John M. Vanderslice, with him Francis Shunk Brown, for appellee.

Opinion:
Pee Cueiam,
This case being close on its facts has had more than usual consideration, both in the court below, and in this court. When it was here before (216 Pa. 29) it was held that the evidence was sufficient to establish a prima facie case of negligence in giving the night engineer charge of the steam regulator when he was known to be a man of intemperate habits, and there was some evidence that he was intoxicated on the night of the accident. It was therefore held to be a case for the jury. At the last trial, from which we have this present appeal, the testimony was substantially the same, and the judge was therefore right in submitting it to the jury.
Judgment affirmed.