Skip to main content
· 1/6/1913

Cramer v. Aluminum Co.

Citations

  • 239 Pa. 120
  • 86 A. 654
  • 1913 Pa. LEXIS 529

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Master and servant — Dangerous machinery — Unguarded cog wheels — Act of May 2, 1905, P. L. 852 — Contributory negligence — Case for jury.</p> <p>1. In an action by an employee against his employer to recover damages for the loss of certain of his fingers caught between the cog-wheels of a shearing machine, the case is for the jury where it appears that the defendant had not guarded the cog-wheels as required by the Act of May 2, 1905, P. L. 352; that plaintiff when injured was engaged in the performance of his work in the usual manner pursued at the defendant’s plant and in accordance with instructions received from defendant’s foreman; that he knew of no better way to do it and in fact no better way was pointed out in the evidence, and that the hand rag which plaintiff had on at the time of the accident and which was the first thing caught in the cog-wheels was the usual protection worn by men engaged in the character of work being performed.</p> <p>2. Where the issue of contributory negligence has been submitted to the jury, a finding in favor of the plaintiff will not be set aside unless, upon a review of the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, it is inconceivable that a mind desiring only a just and proper determination of the question could reasonably reach any other conclusion than that the plaintiff had brought about or contributed to the injury by his own carelessness. That is, after determining all doubts and drawing all inferences in favor of the plaintiff, it must be clear that he was guilty of contributory negligence before it can be so ruled as a matter of law.</p> <p>Evidence — Witness—Cross examination — Harmless error.</p> <p>3. The refusal of the trial judge to permit a plaintiff’s witness to be asked certain questions upon cross examination for the purpose of showing the-witness’s bias is not ground for reversal, even though the ruling inay not have been technically correct, if it appears from an examination of t

Judges: Elkin, Fell, Mestrezat, Moschziskbr, Moschzisker, Stewart

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.