Jones v. American Caramel Co.

Citations

• 225 Pa. 644
• 74 A. 613
• 1909 Pa. LEXIS 714

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Master and servant — Dangerous machinery — Unguarded machinery — Act of May 2, 1905, sec. 11, P. L. 352.</p> <p>1. Where an employer of labor installs a revolving exhaust fan without any guard, in such a position that an inexperienced laborer, who has not been warned or instructed as to danger from the fan, is injured by his hand coming in contact with it in the course of his work, such employer will be responsible for the injury sustained, and nothing will relieve him except proof that the workman was himself guilty of contributory negligence in connection with the accident.</p> <p>2. Under the Act of May 2, 1905, sec. 11, P. L. 352, requiring that “machinery of every description shall be properly guarded,” it is the duty of an employer to properly guard a revolving fan placed in an inconspicuous position and the defendant is not to be relieved from the charge of negligence because the plaintiff fails to show that it was customary in factories to place guards or screens over revolving fans.</p> <p>3. Under the Act of May 2, 1905, P. L. 352, the legislative mandate is that machinery of every description shall be properly guarded, and customary disregard of this is but customary. negligence rendering everyone guilty of it responsible for the consequences resulting directly and solely from it.</p> <p>Negligence — Statutory duty — Usage.</p> <p>4. Ordinary usage which is in disregard of a statutory duty cannot be a test of negligence.</p>