Augerstein v. Jones

Citations

• 139 Pa. 183
• 21 A. 24
• 1891 Pa. LEXIS 970

Syllabus

<p>[To be reported.]</p> <p>1. In an action to recover damages for injuries received by an employee by means of the breaking of machinery supplied him to work with, the fact that the accident occurred and that it was possible to prevent it, is not the legal test of liability for negligence on the part of the employer.</p> <p>2. The rule of duty on the part of the employer is, not that he must provide machinery such as will either insure the employee against injury or be of the very best and newest device obtainable, but such as is ordinarily in use and reasonably safe for the work to be done.</p> <p>3. Where an employee was injured by the bursting of an emery wheel operated by him, not shown to be defective or constructed out of the usual way, it was error to charge that if the accident could have been prevented by the adoption of a device which was not adopted, the employer was guilty of negligence.</p> <p>4. Where specifications of error do not set out the testimony alleged to have been erroneously admitted or excluded, or, where the record presented does not show that exceptions were taken and sealed to the admission or refusal of the offers, they cannot be sustained on appeal.</p>