Feeney v. Abelson

Citations

• 49 Pa. Super. 163
• 1912 Pa. Super. LEXIS 301

Syllabus

<p>Negligenpe — Master and servant — Vice principal — Fellow servant— Act of June 10,1907, P. L. 688.</p> <p>1. In an action by an employee against his employer, the owner of a junk yard, to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff is not entitled to recover where the evidence shows that the accident was caused by the negligence of the driver of a team of the defendant; that such driver was foreman of the yard during the defendant’s absence only, but that at the time of the accident the defendant was on the premises and at the immediate place of the accident a few minutes after it occurred. In such a case even if the driver had been the foreman at the time of the accident the plaintiff could not fix liability upon the defendant, if it appears that the negligent act of the driver was an act done in performance of the ordinary work of a fellow servant of the plaintiff.</p> <p>2. ' Where a manager or vice principal undertakes work in simple co-operation with other servants, and upon precisely the same footing with them, he becomes for the time being a mere fellow servant with them acting as such, and if in the performance of such work he negligently injures another servant, the latter cannot recover damages from the master for the injuries sustained.</p> <p>3. The Act of June 10, 1907, P. L. 523, was not intended to impose liability upon an employer except in the case of results happening through the exercise of superintendency. The consequences of the negligence of the persons of the classes named in the act are visited on the employer because such negligence is that of a representative of the employer, the vice principal, as to the particular transaction. The statute does not cover the case of coemployees engaged in the accomplishment of a common object, where the negligence of one results in injury to another.</p>