Case Name: Rhodes, Appellant, v. Steel Car Forge Company
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1915-01-02
Citations: 247 Pa. 125
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 225
Parties: Rhodes, Appellant, v. Steel Car Forge Company.
Judges: Before Brown, Mestrezat, Elkin, Stewart and Moschzisker, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 247
Pages: 125–126

Head Matter:
Rhodes, Appellant, v. Steel Car Forge Company.
Negligence — Master and servant — Fall of material — Unexplained accident — N onsuit.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries caused by the fall upon plaintiff of steel yokes piled in defendant’s foundry, where he was working, a nonsuit was properly entered, where the evidence failed to show any negligence on the part of the defendant that could have caused the accident.
Argued Oct. 7, 1914.
Appeal, No. 225, Oct. T., 1914, by the plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Lawrence Co., Sept. T., 1913, No. 77, refusing to take off nonsuit in case of William A. Rhodes v. The Steel Car Forge Company.
Before Brown, Mestrezat, Elkin, Stewart and Moschzisker, JJ.
Affirmed.
Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Porter, P. J.
From the record it appeared that plaintiff was employed in a foundry and operated a drill press for drilling holes in steel plates or yokes. There were two piles of yokes laid in the usual manner behind the plaintiff, the piles being from two to three feet apart. As plaintiff was removing a yoke from one of said piles, the other pile fell upon plaintiff causing the injuries complained of. There was evidence that the fall might have been caused by a fellow workman who had thrown a yoke down hard upon the pile which fell.
The trial judge entered a compulsory nonsuit which the court in banc subsequently refused to take off. Plaintiff appealed.
Error assigned was in refusing to take off the nonsuit.
A. W. Gardner and W. D. Wallace, with them Charles E. Mehard, for appellant.
J. N. Martin, of Martin & Martin, for appellee.
January 2, 1915:

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
The appellant, while in the employ of the appellee, was injured by the falling of a pile of yokes. It does not clearly appear what caused them to fall. That they fell in coñsequence of the failure of the defendant company to do anything it should have done to have prevented their falling nowhere appears. From all that can be gathered from the evidence, their falling was a pure accident, involving no breach of duty on the part of the defendant company to its injured employee. The non-suit having been properly entered for the reason that no negligence had been shown, cannot be disturbed.
Judgment affirmed.