Glass v. Borough of College Hill

Citations

• 233 Pa. 457
• 82 A. 771
• 1912 Pa. LEXIS 851

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Master and servant — Defective machinery — Notice — Promise to repair — Continuing in employment — Boroughs.</p> <p>1. A servant may be guilty of contributory negligence in continuing to use a machine which he knows to be in dangerous condition, notwithstanding he has protested against such use, and received the master’s promise to repair; but the test of contributory negligence in such case is whether the danger in using the machine was so imminent that no man of ordinary prudence would assume the risk. Except where the danger is so imminent that a reasonably prudent man would not incur it, the servant may, in reliance on the promise of the employer to remedy it, remain for a reasonable period in the employment without forfeiting his right to recover for injuries received because of these conditions.</p> <p>2. In an action by an employee against his employer, a borough, to recover damages for injuries sustained by reason of the breaking of an engine of which plaintiff was in charge, the questions of defendant’s negligence and of plaintiff’s contributory negligence are for the jury where it appears that more than a month before the accident, defendant’s attention was called to the defective condition of the engine, and repairs were made without remedying the condition, of which fact defendant had notice; that subsequently the plaintiff again called the defendant’s attention to the defective part and at the same time expressed the opinion that its condition made it dangerous to operate and the defendant’s representative replied, “We will have to have the light, George, you go on running and we will have it repaired;” and that plaintiff with full apprehension of the danger continued in employment on the assurance that the defect would be remedied.</p>