Faber v. Carlisle Manufacturing Co.

Citations

• 126 Pa. 387
• 17 A. 621
• 1889 Pa. LEXIS 884

Syllabus

<p>(a) In an action for personal injuries plaintiff proved that the employees in defendant’s machine shop, when operating lathes to turn crank-shafts oí a lighter weight, used anything they saw fit as a counter-balance, and that a piece of iron weighing 40 pounds, so used but improperly-secured, had flown off and struck and injured him.</p> <p>(6) Plaintiff also proved that in turning crank-shafts of a heavier weight, an appliance particularly devised for a counter-balance was used, but failed to prove that such an appliance was generally used in turning shafts of the lighter weight. It also appeared that plaintiff had been an apprentice in the shop for four years, knew how these lathes were operated, but no complaint had been made to defendant thereof.</p> <p>1. In such case, the court below properly entered a judgment of non-suit, because, (1) if there was any negligence in the case, it was that of the foreman of the lathe in not properly securing the counterbalance, and (2) the evidence failed to disclose that the proprietor of the shop was at fault in not providing a superior counter-balance.</p>