Glenn v. Kittanning Iron & Steel Mfg. Co.

Citations

• 62 Pa. Super. 163
• 1916 Pa. Super. LEXIS 378

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Master and servant — Unguarded wall — Contributory negligence — Case for jury — Witness—Competency of witness.</p> <p>Where a workman employed in a mill enters his master’s premises on a dark morning and in proceeding to the department where he worked, walked along the top of an eighteen-inch wide wall adjoining a pit and by a misstep caused by the confusion resulting from the darkness, and by escaping steam falls into the pit and is injured, he is entitled to a verdict and judgment in his favor against his employer, if the evidence shows that the wall was unguarded, that it was the usual way for the workmen to go to their work, and that defendant knew this, that although there were other ways, this way was the safest under all the circumstances, that the place was usually lighted but not on this particular morning, and there is testimony of a witness employed in several other places of a similar character, that pits of the kind in question were usually guarded and ought to be guarded.</p> <p>The reason that supports the rule requiring a master to keep reasonably safe the place in which his servant actually performs his work, necessarily extends the rule to the means provided by the master on his own premises, by which the servant obtains access to his working place.</p> <p>The competency of a witness and the extent of the knowledge he possesses, which must determine his competency, are largely matters of discretion for the trial judge.</p>