Card v. Stowers Pork Packing & Provision Co.

Citations

• 253 Pa. 575
• 98 A. 728
• 1916 Pa. LEXIS 893

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Master and servant — Assumption of rislc — Moving machinery — Act of May 2, 1905, P. L. 852 — Practice, O. P. — Statement of claim — Amendments—Statute of limitations — Nonsuit.</p> <p>1. After the statute of limitations has run, a plaintiff cannot by amendment change his cause of action from a common law to a statutory proceeding.</p> <p>2. Where an employee continues to work at a place he knows to be dangerous and voluntarily takes the chances of being injured, he cannot hold his employer liable for the consequences of his rashness.</p> <p>3. In an action at common law to recover damages for injuries ¡sustained by a workman in consequence of coming in contact with the moving pin of a crank shaft, where it appeared that while plaintifE was endeavoring to oil the machinery, of which at the time he was in entire control, he stood upon a greasy surface and fell, suffering the injury complained of, the trial judge did not err in refusing to allow plaintiff to amend his statement so as to allege a cause of action under the Factory Act of May 2, 1905, P. L. 352, after the statute of limitations had run, or in holding that plaintiff had voluntarily assumed the risk of performing the work in the manner in which he endeavored to do it, and properly entered a compulsory nonsuit.</p>