Dickson v. Hollister
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Clark, Gordor, Green, Hakd, Paxsok, Sterrett, Williams
- Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
- Published
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- appeal
- State
- Pennsylvania
Outcome
The court affirmed the Civil Service Commission's denial of counsel fees but reversed and remanded for a hearing on whether the petitioner was entitled to ancillary relief (rescission/retraction of a circulated reprimand memorandum) following her employer's unilateral withdrawal of a negative performance evaluation.
Excerpt
ERROR TO THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NO. 1 OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY. No. 32 October Term 1888, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 407 March Term 1887, C. P. No. 1. On February 7, 1887, a summons in case was served in an action by Alfred Hollister against Dr. John S. Dickson and Sarah Dickson, his'wife, -to recover damages for personal injuries received through the alleged negligence of the defendants. Issue. At the trial on November 17, 1887, the facts appearing in evidence were substantially as follows : On April 10, 1886, the plaintiff, a resident of Utica, New York, was in Pittsburgh, as a traveling salesman for a drug house in New York city, and in the afternoon of that day when passing in front of property belonging to the defendants on Ninth street, in the pursuit of his business, he stepped upon the grating which covered a coal-hole in the foot way. The grating was displaced by his step upon it, and turned or slipped away, whereby the plaintiff fell into the coal-hole to his arm-pits, receiving a severe injury upon his right leg below the knee. He was confined to his bed at the St. Charles Hotel for two months, under treatment, and was off duty for still another month. Erysipelas supervened during his confinement. His testimony, as to the occurrence resulting in his injury sufficiently appears in the charge of the court below and in the opinion of this court. Dr. Orr, his physician, testified that the erysipelas set in on the sixth or seventh day; that erysipelas frequently though not usually followed wounds, but if there had been -no wound there would have been no erysipelas. Other witnesses were called by the plaintiff to prove his injuries, the resultant suffering and the expenses incurred, when he rested. The defendants called Thomas Johnson, an employee of the defendants -who had charge of the building in front of which the injury occurred, and who testified that the coal-hole was not in use at the time, and he had secured the grat
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
Browse Related
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.