Greenway v. Conroy

Citations

• 160 Pa. 185
• 28 A. 692
• 1894 Pa. LEXIS 791

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Infants— Contributory negligence — Presumption.</p> <p>The measure of a child’s responsibility is his capacity to see and appreciate danger, and the rule is that, in the absence of clear evidence of the lack of it, he will be held to such measure of discretion as is usual in those of his age and experience. This measure varies of course with each additional year, and the increase of responsibility is gradual. It makes no sudden leap at the age of fourteen. That is simply the convenient point at which the law, founded upon experience, changes the presumption of capacity, and puts upon the infant the burden of showing his personal want of intelligence, prudence, foresight or strength usual in those of his age: Kehler v. Schwenk, 144 Pa. 359.</p> <p>In an action by a boy over fourteen years of age against his employer to recover damages for personal injuries, the court cannot assume that plaintiff, with six months’ experience in a machine shop, is incapable of forming a judgment of the danger of going up a ladder to put a belt on a pulley, particularly where he was warned by another workman as he was going up the ladder that he ought not to put the belt on.</p> <p>Negligence — Fellow servants — Master and servant.</p> <p>In an action by an employee against his employer to recover damages for personal injuries, binding instructions should be given for defendant where the evidence shows that the accident was caused by the negligent conduct of a workman employed as an engineer who had no general authority or control over the men, although at rare intervals left in charge when the defendant, who was his own superintendent, was away from the works, and that the accident occurred when the defendant was not absent.</p>