History
  • No items yet
midpage
Hall v. Simpson
203 Pa. 146
Pa.
1902
Check Treatment
Per Curiam,

The plaintiff’s testimony established two things only: the mere fact of the accident, and that the ventilating fans were *148not run day and night. The first was not sufficient to warrant a recovery by an employee, and the second did not give rise to an inference of negligence on the part of the defendants which caused the accident. Except in the abandoned rooms where the workmen were forbidden to go, gas was found in the mine at intervals only, when a fall occurred or a clay vein was struck. The failure to run the fans constantly was only one of a number of causes that might account for the presence of gas in the mine on the morning of the accident, and the constant running of them would not have been effective unless the course of the air currents within the mine had been properly directed. This was a matter committed by act of assembly to one over whom the defendants had no control, and for whose neglect they were not answerable. In the absence of affirmative proof of negligence, the nonsuit was properly granted.

The judgment is affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Hall v. Simpson
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Date Published: May 19, 1902
Citation: 203 Pa. 146
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 135
Court Abbreviation: Pa.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.