Hogarth v. William H. Grandy & Co.

Citations

• 256 Pa. 451
• 100 A. 1001
• 1917 Pa. LEXIS 634

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Woolen mills — Machinery—Set-screws — Guards — Act of May 2, 1906, P. L. S62 — Release—Procurement by fraud— Retention of money — Contributory negligence — Case for fury.</p> <p>1. Tbe provision of the Act of May 2, 1905, P. L. 352, requiring, inter alia, that all set screws and machinery of every description be properly guarded, applies to set screws on standing as well as revolving machinery.</p> <p>2. In an action by an employee against a woolen manufacturing company to recover for the loss of an arm while engaged in work at a wool washing machine, where it appeared that plaintiff’s sleeve was caught in an unguarded set screw and his hand and arm were drawn into the rollers, whereby the injury complained of resulted, the question whether it was practicable to guard the set screw or rollers was for the jury and a verdict and judgment for plaintiff will be sustained, where the evidence was conflicting.</p> <p>3. In such case there was no merit in the contention that the set screw was not the cause of the accident where plaintiff testified that as he was putting the end of the burlapping material with which the rollers were wrapped down between them his sleeve was caught in the screw- so 'firmly that he could not move his arm and it was drawn into the rollers.</p> <p>4. The question whether defendant was guilty of contributory negligence in not standing on the floor instead of the brake rod when attempting to wrap the roller, and in inserting his hand above instead of below the rod in front of the rollers, was for the jury whore plaintiff testified that by reason of his dimunitive height he was compelled to stand on the rod to perform the services, and that he was obeying the directions of defendant’s foreman when he inserted his hand abqve the rod.</p> <p>5. The question whether a release, alleged to have been executed by the plaintiff a month after the injury, was valid or procured by fraud, was for the jury where plaintiff’s evidence was that repr