Greenan v. Eggeling

Citations

• 30 Pa. Super. 253
• 1906 Pa. Super. LEXIS 57

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Master and servant — Instruction of servant — Laundry—Mangle.</p> <p>If there are different ways in which work may be done which an employee is required to do, one of which has been shown by experience to be safe, and another dangerous, an inexperienced servant is entitled to instructions in regard to the proper manner of doing it.</p> <p>In an action by a girl seventeen years old against her employer, the proprietor of a laundry, to recover damages for injuries sustained while working at a mangle, the case is for the jury where the evidence is conflicting as to whether the plaintiff received any instruction as to the method of operating the'machine.</p> <p>In such a case if it appears that the plaintiff complained of the machine, not because of any danger which she feared, but because of the failure of the machine to do good work, she cannot be charged with assuming a risk by continuing to work at the machine.</p> <p>Where the evidence is conflicting as to whether hand guards were customarily used on mangles, the question is for the jury to determine whether the employer was negligent in not providing a hand guard.</p> <p>Trial — Witness—Subpoena.</p> <p>Where a number of attempts have been made to subpoena a witness who had testified at a previous trial all of which have failed, the testimony of the witness at the previous trial may be offered in evidence.</p>