
    WILLIAMS v. AMERICAN BRIDGE CO.
    (Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.
    May 17, 1910.)
    No. 858.
    Master and Servant (§ 170) — Injuries to Servant — Fellow Servants — Incompetency.
    Where plaintiff was injured by the negligence of a fellow servant who was incompetent to perform, the work allotted to him by defendant’s foreman, and defendant had not exercised reasonable care to ascertain the fellow servant’s competency, defendant was liable for plaintiff’s injuries.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. § 336; Dec. Dig. § 170.]
    At Law. Action by Edward H. Williams against the American Bridge Company. Verdict for plaintiff. On defendant’s motion for a new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
    Motions denied.
    
      John Eckstein Beatty, for plaintiff.
    J. W. Bayard and John G. Johnson, for defendant.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § ntxmber in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date. & Rep'r Indexes
    
   J. B. McPHERSON, District Judge.

I have gone carefully over the testimony in this case, and am unable to see how the questions in, dispute could have been withdrawn from the jury. Under the charge of the court they must have found: (1) That Marter, the plaintiff’s fellow servant, was not competent to do the work properly which the •defendant’s foreman permitted him to undertake; (2) that the defendant did not exercise reasonable care in the effort to ascertain Marter’s competency; and (3) that the plaintiff’s injury was directly due to Marter’s lack of skill. On each of these subjects I think there was sufficient evidence to require its submission.

The motions are refused, and an exception is sealed to the refusal of judgment notwithstanding the verdict.  