Izzo v. Finn

Citations

• 238 Pa. 602
• 86 A. 486
• 1913 Pa. LEXIS 1019

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Master and servant — Belting—Necessity for guard —Court-and fury — Act of May 2, 1905, P. L. 852.</p> <p>1. In cases arising under the Factory Act of May 2, 1905, P. L. 352, as in other actions for personal injuries, the plaintiff must affirmatively establish the negligence of the defendant, and his case in chief must not disclose contributory negligence on his part.</p> <p>2. In such a case the necessity for an artificial guard, under the Act of May 2, 1905, P. L. 352, depends upon the existence of certain conditions and in many instances is a question of fact for the jury.</p> <p>3. In an action against an employer to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by an employee by reason of the defendant’s failure to provide a guard for the belt used in running the machine at which he was working, the case was held to be for the jury and a verdict for the plaintiff was sustained where the plaintiff introduced testimony which established the fact that the belt was not guarded, and proved all the facts and circumstances connected with the location of the machinery and the happening of the accident; and the defendant undertook to show that the plaintiff had contributed to the accident by the negligent manner in which he had attempted to repair the belt, and that he had adopted a dangerous method when he could have chosen a safe way.</p>