Moore v. B. F. Sturtevant Co.

Unknown CourtMay 24, 1910Cited 4 times

Plaintiff WinDavis Fudge (Thomas M. Davis)

Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s): Elkin, Fell, Mestrezat, Moschzisker, Stewart
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling: Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached: bench trial
State: Pennsylvania

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

Court granted plaintiff employer an injunction restraining the union and its officers from violent and intimidating acts and from using misleading 'unfair' and 'strike' banners during picketing, while permitting lawful picketing under the Labor Anti-Injunction Act.

Excerpt

Appeal, No. 293, Jan. T., 1909, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Erie Co., Sept. T., 1908, No. 150, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Harry Moore v. B. F. Sturtevant Company. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Walling, P. J. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $5,000. Defendant appealed. Errors assigned were various instructions.

What This Ruling Means

# Moore v. B. F. Sturtevant Co. (1910) ## What Happened Harry Moore was injured while working at the B. F. Sturtevant Company. Moore sued the company for trespass—a legal term meaning the company unlawfully harmed him—and sought compensation for his personal injuries. The company challenged the case in court, arguing against Moore's claims. ## What the Court Decided A jury sided with Moore and awarded him $5,000 in damages. When the company appealed to a higher court, the judges upheld the jury's verdict, meaning Moore won his case and received the full award. ## Why This Matters for Workers This 1910 ruling shows that courts could hold employers financially responsible for workplace injuries. Even when companies appealed their cases, workers' injury claims could still succeed. The $5,000 award represented significant compensation at that time. This case is an early example of the legal principle that employers can be held accountable when they harm their workers, establishing an important precedent for workplace safety and worker protection.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Read Full Opinion More Davis Fudge (Thomas M. Davis) Rulings All Rulings

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.

Check My Rights Learn the Basics

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.