Skip to main content
· 11/16/1914

Duffy v. India Refining Co.

Citations

  • 58 Pa. Super. 473
  • 1914 Pa. Super. LEXIS 334

Syllabus

<p>Negligence—Master and servant—Dangerous work—Duty to instruct. 1. When an inexperienced employee is placed in charge of dangerous machinery, or a method of doing particular work with the use of which he is unacquainted, it is the positive duty of the employer to instruct and properly qualify him for such services, and warn him of such dangers as are not apparent.</p> <p>2. If the master gives the servant to understand that he does not consider the risk one which a prudent person should refuse to undertake, the servant has a right to rely upon his master’s judgment, unless his own is so greatly opposed thereto that he does not in fact rely upon the master’s opinion.</p> <p>3. Where a woman employed as a common laborer to repair canvas strainers through which a chemical has been strained, is not warned of any danger, and after a while finds that her finger ends are becoming sore and notifies the superintendent of this fact, but he tells her to go on with her work as there is nothing to harm her, she may recover damages from her employer for the loss of a finger resulting from her continuance at the work.</p>

Judges: Head, Henderson, Kephart, Orlady, Rice, Trexler

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.