Skip to main content
· 11/6/1893

Bannon v. Lutz

Citations

  • 158 Pa. 166
  • 27 A. 890
  • 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1563

Syllabus

<p>Master and servant — Negligence—Safe appliances.</p> <p>It is the duty of an employer to furnish his employees reasonably safe appliances with which to do the work assigned to them, and also to know what appliances are suitable and in common and ordinary use for the purpose.</p> <p>In an action to recover damages for death of plaintiff’s husband, it appeared that it was the duty of deceased to remove the manheads from the stills in an oil refinery after the fires were drawn. While in the performance of his duty he was killed by an explosion of gas in one of the stills. Evidence for plaintiff tended to show that it was customary to use steam in the stills after the fires were drawn for the protection of the men in removing the manheads, and that there was in common and ordinary use a contrivance by means of which the Stillman was enabled to remove the manhead without lifting it from its place, or standing immediately in front of it. It appeared that neither this contrivance nor steam was used in defendant’s works. Held, that the evidence was sufficient to support a verdict and judgment for plaintiff.</p> <p>Contributory negligence — Evidence—Inferences from facts.</p> <p>In the above case it appeared that after the accident the manhead was found leaning against the still at one side of the manhole, and that there was a lantern with the glass globe slightly cracked, and a light still burning in it at the time, about twenty-five feet beyond the place where the deceased was found enveloped in flames. From these facts it was claimed as an irresistible inference that after deceased had removed the manhead he negligently passed in front of the open manhole with the lantern in his hands, thereby exploding the gas issuing from the opening. Held, that such an inference could not be drawn by the court, and that the case was for the jury.</p> <p>Risk of employment — Latent dangers — Appliances.</p> <p>An employee is not presumed to know whether his employer has furnished app

Judges: Dean, McCollum, Mitchell, Sterrett, Thompson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.