Escher v. Southwark Mills Co.

Citations

• 221 Pa. 180
• 70 A. 714
• 1908 Pa. LEXIS 462

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Master and servant — Written statement — Ignorance of (he English language — Evidence.</p> <p>In an action by an employee against his employer to recover damages for personal injuries, where the defendant offers in evidence a statement signed by the plaintiff shortly after the accident and alleges that plaintiff’s evidence on the stand is inconsistent with the statement, and it appears that plaintiff made'the statement in the German language, that it was translated into English by another person, and written out in defendant’s office, and also that the statement was inaccurate in some minor matters, it is for the jury to determine whether the writing produced embodied accurately the statement made by the plaintiff.</p> <p>Negligence — Master and servant — Risk of employment — Caustic soda.</p> <p>In an accident case by an employee against his employer for injuries to. plaintiff’s eye caused by caustic soda, the question of defendant’s negligence is for the jury where it appears that at the time of the accident the plaintiff was helping to roll up an iron barrel of caustic soda on an incline, that in one of the heads of the barrel there was a hole only six inches less than the diameter of the head itself, that in this hole was stuffed a piece of burlap without being fastened, that the pressure of the contents of the barrel easily forced the burlap out of place, and that the caustic soda flowing out fell on the plaintiff and injured him.</p> <p>In such a case where the defendant offers evidence to the effect that the accident was due to the negligence of other workmen in adjusting the rope around the barrel, and that the plaintiff knew of the danger and assumed the risk, and these allegations are contradicted by the plaintiff, a verdict and judgment for plaintiff will not be reversed.</p>