Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

JONES v. JONES (11/11/57)

November 11, 1957

JONES
v.
JONES, APPELLANT.



Appeal, No. 106, March T., 1957, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Mercer County, June T., 1955, No. 202, in case of Robert W. Jones, Jr. v. Robert W. Jones. Judgment entered for defendant n.o.v.

COUNSEL

Martin E. Cusick, with him William J. Joyce, Wiesen, Cusick & Madden and Joyce, Acker & McKay, for appellant.

E. V. Buckley, with him Donovan H. Henry and Mercer & Buckley, for appellee.

Before Jones, C.j., Bell, Chidsey, Arnold, Jones and Cohen, JJ.

Author: Bell

[ 390 Pa. Page 427]

OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE BELL

Plaintiff, and experienced farmer, 26 years of age, sued his father in trespass for loss of his right hand and a part of his right arm while working around a

[ 390 Pa. Page 428]

    corn husking and shredding machine on defendant's farm. Plaintiff averred that defendant was negligent (a) in furnishing a machine that lacked a shield which would prevent the hand of an operator of the machine from entering into the snapper rolls, and (b) in furnishing a machine that lacked a device which would automatically stop the snapper rolls in the event that a person's hand became caught therein, and (c) in failing to warn the plaintiff of the dangers involved in the use of the machine due to the lack of a shield or guard, and (d) in failing to provide a person to shut off the power of the machine if the operator's hand was caught therein. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $30,500. The defendant took this appeal and urges that a judgment non obstante veredicto be here entered in his favor.

It is hornbook law that in considering a motion for a judgment n.o.v. we consider the evidence which is favorable to plaintiff, together with all reasonable inferences therefrom. Applying this test, the facts which were proved on behalf of plaintiff were as follows:

Plaintiff and defendant were experienced farmers and each owned a farm in Mercer County, Pa., approximately 13 1/2 miles apart. Prior to the accident, plaintiff had many years of experience with farm equipment, including a corn binder, manure spreader, corn planter, mowing machine, hammer mill, ensilage cutter, hay rake and grain binder, but had never operated a huskershredder machine.

Prior to the accident, plaintiff and defendant had a reciprocal arrangement under which each performed services for the other on the farm of the other. In July or August 1954, plaintiff and defendant saw a used husker-shredder machine known ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.