Case Name: Allison v. Fitz Water Wheel Company, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1915-05-26
Citations: 250 Pa. 111
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 174
Parties: Allison v. Fitz Water Wheel Company, Appellant.
Judges: Before Brown, C. J., Mestrezat, Potter, Moschzisker and Frazer, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 250
Pages: 111–113

Head Matter:
Allison v. Fitz Water Wheel Company, Appellant.
Negligence — Master and servant — Unsafe tools — Case for jury.
Where in an action by an employee against his employer for injuries sustained in consequence of the breaking of an iron hook, there was evidence that the hook had been in use for eleven years and had become crystallized and brittle in consequence of such use, and that its condition could, have been ascertained by the use of proper tests, but that no tests had been made, the case was for the jury and the verdict apd judgment for plaintiff were sustained.
Argued May 18, 1915.
Appeal, No. 174, Jan. T.,4914, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. York Co., Aug. T., 1913, No. 54, on verdict from plaintiff, in case of Harry B. Allison v. Fitz Water Wheel Company.
Before Brown, C. J., Mestrezat, Potter, Moschzisker and Frazer, JJ.
Affirmed.
Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Wanner, P. J.
From the record it appeared that plaintiff was injured in consequence of the breaking of an iron hook attached to a chain which was being used for raising the upper half of a flask used in casting. There was evidence that the hook had been in use in defendant’s foundry for more than eleven years; that no examination or precaution had been taken by defendant to provide against deterioration; that the hook had become crystallized, weakened and brittle, and that its condition could have been ascertained by proper tests, but that no tests had been made.
Other facts appear in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
, Verdict for plaintiff for $3,000 and judgment thereon. Defendant appealed.
Errors assigned were rulings on evidence and the refusal of the court to direct a verdict for defendant and to enter judgment for defendant n. o. v.
Richard E. Cochran, with him George Hay Eain and S my ser Williams, for appellant.
Michael S. Niles, with him Charles A. May, George E. Neff and Henry C. Niles, for appellee.
May 26, 1915:

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
The injuries sustained by the appellee were caused by the breaking of an iron hook in the foundry of his em ployer. The negligence of the defendant was the fundamental question in the case, and could not have been taken from the jury, in view of the evidence of the crystallization of the hook, caused, according to the testimony of several witnesses, by its long use. Whether the defendant had been negligent in not testing or inspecting it from time to time was a matter for the jury. As we have not been convinced that any of the assignments of error, complaining of rulings on offers of evidence, ought to be sustained, the judgment is affirmed.