Keenan v. Waters

Citations

• 181 Pa. 247
• 37 A. 342
• 1897 Pa. LEXIS 536

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Master and servant — Machinery and appliances.</p> <p>An employer is not bound to provide the safest machinery or the newest or most approved appliances. If the maohinerybe of an ordinary character, and such as can with reasonable care be used without danger to the employee, it is all that can be required of the employer.</p> <p>In an action to recover damages for personal injuries it appeared that plaintiff was employed in a laundry, and while engaged in operating a machine used fordrying and ironing clothes, her hand was caught between, the rollers and injured. It was alleged that plaintiff’s employers were negligent in not providing a guard rail. The testimony showed that the machine was in perfect working condition ; that it was of a kind that was in general use; that guard rails were not used on such machines, and that the machine in question could not be operated with a guard rail attached. Meld, that it was proper to give binding instructions for defendants.</p> <p>Negligence — Master and servant — Instruction of servant — Risk of employment.</p> <p>In an action to recover damages for personal injuries received by plaintiff while working ata machine in a laundry, it appeared that the plaintiff was a woman twenty-four years old, and had,been employed in a laundry two years, and had worked for several weeks at a machine similar to the one at which she was injured. At 1he time of her employment she told the defendants what knowledge and experience she had. The engineer in charge of the machine questioned, her before starling it to see whether she was familiar with the use of this kind of machine, and stood by and watched her operate it until he was satisfied that her statement as to her knowledge and experience was correct, and that she was a skilled laundress. Held, that the defendants could not be charged with negligence in failing to give instructions to llie plaintiff as to the use of the machine.</p>