Gross v. Eagle Wheel Manufacturing Co.

Citations

• 252 Pa. 361
• 97 A. 457
• 1916 Pa. LEXIS 621

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Master and servant — Guarding machinery — Practicability of guard — Act of May 2, 1905, P. L. 352 — Contributory negligence — Burden of proof — Case for jury.</p> <p>1. Where machinery or other appliances included within the Act of May 2, 1905, P. L. 352, requiring certain machinery to be properly guarded, are not provided with proper guards it is for the jury to say whether under all the circumstances and in view of the use to which the device is put a guard is necessary. If a protection of some sort is provided which plaintiff contends is not a proper and sufficient compliance with the act, the burden is on him to prove that fact.</p> <p>2. In an action by an employee against a manufacturing company to recover damages for personal injuries the case is for the jury and a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff will be sustained where it appears that the plaintiff was employed as a machinist on a punch press for the defendant company; that the press was guarded in front but not in the rear; that a passageway, which was used by the employees, ran back of the punch press, and that the plaintiff in attempting to pick up some iron bars in the passageway, slipped causing his right hand to come into contact with the cogwheel, whereby he was injured.</p> <p>3. In such case the burden of proof cast on the plaintiff to prove the inadequacy of the guard is sufficiently met where he offers the testimony of an expert witness and proof of the surroundings at the time of the accident.</p> <p>4. In such ease the existence of a rear passageway which was in general use by the employees constituted an invitation to the plaintiff to use it if in the course of his work he found occasion to do so and it cannot be said as a matter of law that its use for the purpose of picking up iron was so obviously dangerous that no reasonably prudent person would have so acted.</p>