Brown v. American Steel Foundries

Citations

• 272 Pa. 231
• 116 A. 546
• 1922 Pa. LEXIS 808

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Custom—Evidence—Moving cranes — Contributory negligence — Sudden danger.</p> <p>1. A custom to be good should be certain, continued, reasonable, distinct, uncontradieted, and so notorious as probably to be known to the parties to the contract.</p> <p>2. To prove negligence in the operation of a plant, evidence of customary methods pursued in other like establishments is not admissible to make out plaintiff’s case, except under extraordinary circumstances.</p> <p>3. In an action for personal injuries by an employee of an independent contractor, against the owner of a steel plant, where it appears that plaintiff was injured while working on the runway of a crane far above the working floor, it is error to admit evidence of a custom to ring a bell as a warning of the approach of a crane, where it was not disputed that a bell was rung to warn men on the working floor far below, without it any where appearing that men working on the runway far above required such notice.</p> <p>4. In such case, the evidence is insufficient to convict plaintiff of contributory negligence as a matter of law, where it appears that the only way that he could reach his work was by climbing past the runway, that defendant was warned to look after him and promised to do so, that it was doubtful whether plaintiff could have seen the crane approach on his ascent, but that as soon as he was in a position to see it from the runway, it was too close for him to escape.</p> <p>5. Defendant could continue to operate the crane, under the circumstances, but it was bound to use reasonable care, considering the work which the employees of the independent contractor had to do.</p> <p>6. Where a sudden emergency presents itself to a workman, he should not be held negligent though he may have done imprudent things thereafter.</p>