<p>Appeal, No. 12, Jan. T., 1898, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1896, No. 925, refusing to take off nonsuit.</p> <p>Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries.</p> <p>At the trial it appeared that the plaintiff, a girl eighteen years old, was employed in the defendants’ laundry as a plain ironer. There was evidence that the defendants used in' their laundry oxalic and sulphuric acids and chloride of lime. Plaintiff claimed that about three months after her first employment, she was set at work over a hot mangle; that she temporarily returned to plain ironing; that she was subsequently put to work again on the mangle, and that while she was at work at the mangle, her eyes became affected by fumes from the acids and chloride of lime, and that in consequence she subsequently lost her sight. There was no evidence that the defendants knew that the acids complained of would produce the disease from which the plaintiff suffered, or that it was not customary to use acids in laundries in the same manner and proportions as they were used in defendants’ laundry. The court entered a compulsory nonsuit which it subsequently refused to take off.</p> <p>Error assigned was refusal to take off nonsuit.</p>
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Affirmed · Decided 1898-04-11
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently April 1944
2 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
¶1There is no evidence that the defendants had any knowledge that the use of the acids complained of would produce the disease from which the plaintiff suffered, and there was no proof that it was not customary to use acids in laundries in the same manner and proportions as they were used in the laundry business conducted by the- defendants. The case was therefore destitute of the evidence necessary to establish the charge of negligence without which there could be no recovery.
