Case Name: STIFFEL & FREEMAN CO. v. AMERICAN FERROFIX BRAZING CO.
Court: United States Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1910-12-06
Citations: 183 F. 512
Docket Number: No. 1,028
Parties: STIFFEL & FREEMAN CO. v. AMERICAN FERROFIX BRAZING CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 183
Pages: 512–512

Head Matter:
STIFFEL & FREEMAN CO. v. AMERICAN FERROFIX BRAZING CO.
(Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.
December 6, 1910.)
No. 1,028.
Explosives (§ 7 ) — Questions for Jury — Conflicting Evidence.
Conflicting evidence with respect to tbe cause of. an explosion held sufficient to require tbe submission to tbe jury of tbe question whether it was caused by tbe negligence of defendant’s agent.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Explosives, Dec. Dig. § 7.*]
At Law. Action by the Stiff el & Freeman Company against the American Ferrofix Brazing Company. On motions by defendant for new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
Motions denied.
H. M. McCaughey and Wm. S. Furst, for plaintiff.
Jere J. Crowley and ITenry N. Smaltz, for defendant.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
J. B. McPHERSON, District Judge.
In my opinion there was competent testimony concerning the cause of the explosion, which required the court to submit the question. The witnesses did not agree, and the jury alone could decide the dispute, and say what the facts were and what inferences were properly to be drawn therefrom. The verdict was not a guess, without evidence. Concededly the defendant's agent was in a position where his incautious act might do harm; he was about to use a tool with which a spark might be generated; and I think the inference was legitimate that the explosion was the effect of such a spark. No doubt there was opposing testimony concerning the cause of the disaster, but the jury was the sole judge in this controversy.
A new trial is refused. Judgment notwithstanding the verdict is also refused, and to this refusal an exception is granted in favor of the defendant.