Brenneman v. P. H. Glatfelter Co.

Citations

• 61 Pa. Super. 64
• 1915 Pa. Super. LEXIS 269

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Master and servant — Unguarded machinery — Act of May 2, 1905, P. L. 852.</p> <p>In an action by an employee against his employer to recover damages for personal injuries sustained while working at cog machinery alleged to have not been properly guarded as required by the Act of May 2, 1905, P. L. 352, the case is for the jury where the evidence for the plaintiff shows that the machinery was unguarded, and that for the defendant tends to show that no guard was practicable at the point where the injury occurred.</p> <p>There is no presumption of law that because a youth has reached the age of nineteen years he is affected with knowledge of all of the dangers that may attend his employment with and about machinery.</p> <p>In a case by an employee for injuries sustained while working at unguarded machinery the trial judge commits no error in charging as follows: “If the jury finds from the evidence that the gearing in which plaintifE was injured was not at the time properly guarded as required by the Act of May 2, 1905, P. L. 352, the plaintiff may recover for resulting injuries unless he was at the time of the accident guilty of negligence contributing to the happening of the accident.</p> <p>Trial — Charge—Answers to points.</p> <p>Whilst a party is entitled to an affirmance of a point which • clearly and adequately expresses a relevant legal principle, this duty can be properly performed even though the trial judge does not confine his answer to the one word “affirmed.”</p>