Baran v. Reading Iron Co.

Citations

• 202 Pa. 274
• 51 A. 979
• 1902 Pa. LEXIS 506

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Evidence—Subsequent precautions.</p> <p>Evidence of precautions taken or repairs made after an accident is not admissible as tending in itself to prove prior negligence.</p> <p>It seems that in most of the cases in which this kind of testimony was sanctioned, the testimony introduced was not of sufficient importance tore-quire a reversal, or there was some ground for its introduction other than that it tended to show antecedent negligence.</p> <p>In an action against an iron company to recover damages for death caused by the explosion of a boiler, testimony was introduced at the trial to show that the boiler which exploded was not properly supported, and that it was imprudently allowed to cool while connected with other boilers which were in full operation. Offers were then made to prove that after the accident a boiler used to replace the one that exploded was supported in a different manner, and that an employee in charge of the boilers in the mill received instructions from the defendant company thereafter to disconnect boilers from the steam main when the fires were drawn. Held that the offers were properly rejected</p> <p>Negligence — Evidence—Burden of proof — Explosion of boiler.</p> <p>In an action to recover damages for death caused by the explosion of a boiler where it appeared that the deceased was not connected with the defendant’s works, a verdict and judgment for the defendant will be sustained, where the testimony not only failed to show negligence, but it affirmatively showed that ordinary care had been exercised, and rebutted any presumption that might be said to arise from the mere fact of the explosion.</p>