Bolles v. Erie Railroad

Citations

• 70 Pa. Super. 64
• 1918 Pa. Super. LEXIS 171

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Master and servant — Youthful employee — Danger-, ous place to work — Failure to instruct — Case for jury.</p> <p>In an action by a youthful and inexperienced employee against his employer to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in a boiler shop, the case is for the jury where the evidence tends to show that plaintiff had been put to work by defendant’s servant at a task usually performed only by skilled and experienced employees; that the work required a light; that although plaintiff had been working about the shop as an apprentice for some time, and had seen skilled men at work, there was some doubt whether or not he comprehended the reason why a light should be used and realized the danger of assuming to do the work he was told to do without the use of such light; that being unable to procure a light he attempted to perform the task assigned to him without it; and that as a result a flying chip of steel struck him in the eye.</p> <p>In such case, even if the plaintiff’s own evidence is contradictory, the question of the meaning of it, as a whole, must be submitted to the jury, and the court cannot declare as a matter of law that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.</p>