Chance v. Philadelphia Ship Repair Co.

Citations

• 256 Pa. 559
• 100 A. 1052
• 1917 Pa. LEXIS 658

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Master and servant — Foreman—Vice-principal — Improper orders — Relying on judgment of superior — Contributory negligence — Inevitable danger — Case for jury.</p> <p>1. - Where, in action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by a dock hand while engaged in work about a revolving-cylinder or drum, used for hoisting machinery, it appeared that plaintiff and others were engaged in hoisting a ship’s rudder into place; that a rope was coiled around the drum, one end of which was attached to the rudder and the other held by plaintiff; that plaintiff was instructed by the foreman to relax his hold to permit the rudder to drop into place by allowing the rope to slip on the drum; that owing- to the number of coils the rudder did not slip easily; that the foreman ordered plaintiff to reduce the number of coils and that while plaintiff was obeying the foreman’s orders the rudder suddenly fell, in consequence of the reduced number of coils, causing plaintiff to become entangled in the ropes and inflicting serious injuries, the case was properly submitted to the jury and a judgment on a verdict for plaintiff was sustained.</p> <p>2. Under the circumstances, plaintiff was not obliged to set up his judgment against that of his superior, but had a right to rely on the latter’s knowledge.</p> <p>3. Although there necessarily came a. time in removing turns from the drum when the danger point was reached, depending upon the object being raised or lowered, it cannot be said in this case, as a matter of law, in view of the number of coils on the drum at the time, that obedience to the foreman’s orders was so inevitably and immediately dangerous that plaintiff must be held guilty of contributory negligence in not refusing to obey them.</p>