Jelic v. Jamison Coal & Coke Co.

Citations

• 259 Pa. 447
• 103 A. 300
• 1918 Pa. LEXIS 432

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Master and servant — Mines and mining — Inexperienced minor — Striking unexploded charge loith pick — Employer’s duty to warn of danger — Instruction—Delegation—Custom—Fellow servant — Case for jury.</p> <p>1. Where an employer delegates an older and experienced fellow servant of an inexperienced employee to instruct and qualify him for service, the employer is liable for the negligence or omission of the instructor, if, by reason of it, the employee suffers injury. A servant delegated to instruct the employee stands for this purpose in the place of the employer.</p> <p>2. In an action against a coal mining company to recover for personal injuries sustained by a minor in defendant’s employ due to the failure of the defendant to give him proper instructions as to the danger to which he might be subjected from unexploded charges having been left in the coal where he was directed to work, or as to the proper method of avoiding injury from such unexploded shots, the case is for the jury and a verdict for plaintiff will be sustained where it appeared that prior to the accident plaintiff had been employed in various coal mines for fourteen months, but with a limited experience in the use of explosives; that as a rule he had worked with experienced miners, but on the morning of the accident was working alone digging coal when he stuck his pick into the coal at a point five or six inches from a hole and an explosion immediately followed, causing the injuries complained of; that plaintiff was ignorant of the danger from unexploded shots in the coal, and had never been warned to look out for them or instructed as to the proper method of guarding against injury from them, although the testimony tended to show a custom to give such instruction.</p> <p>3. In Such case, although the failure to report the existence of the unexploded charges was due to the negligence of another miner, a fellow workman of the plaintiff, the fellow-servant rule is not applicable.</p>