Faulkner v. Delph Spinning Co.

Citations

• 245 Pa. 40
• 91 A. 607
• 1914 Pa. LEXIS 828

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Master and servant — Dangerous machinery — Guards — Act of May 2, 1905, P. L. 852, Section 11 — Charge of court — Erroneous instructions.</p> <p>.1. The case was for the jury in an action of trespass to recover damages for injuries to plaintiff’s hand, which was drawn into the unguarded cog-wheels of a spinning machine about which plaintiff was working, where plaintiff testified that the wheels were so close to the frame enclosing the machine that “if you just put your foot out, you would catch your dress”; that at the time of the accident a piece of waste which she had in her hand fell upon a shaft, to which one of the cog-wheels was attached and became caught in the shaft, that in trying to grab the waste while the machinery was in motion, her hand was caught in the cogs whereby the injuries complained of resulted, although defendant offered evidence not contradicted or impeached, that by actual measure, there was a space of eighteen inches between the front of the frame of the machine, and the nearest surface of the cogs, so that the cogs were entirely safe as to plaintiff, and were not, therefore, unguarded within the meaning of the Act of May 2, 1905, P. L; 352, Section 11.</p> <p>2. Where in such action defendant’s evidence tended to show that the shaft and cogs were not located near the front of the frame, but were so far within that the waste could not have fallen upon the shaft or cog-wheels as alleged by plaintiff, an issue of fact was raised, which, if determined in defendant’s favor, would have overcome plaintiff’s prima facie case, although the negligence of the defendant in not guarding the machinery should be conceded, and it was the duty of the court so to instruct the jury.</p> <p>3. Where, at the trial of such action, photographs of the machine were admitted in evidence which were unsatisfactory if not actually misleading, except as explained by further evidence in the case and the trial judge charged the jury that “There is an Act