McDonnell v. Orinoka Mills

Citations

• 241 Pa. 61
• 88 A. 81
• 1913 Pa. LEXIS 735

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Master and servant — Unexplained accident — Evidence — Judgment n. o. v.</p> <p>1. Tbe mere happening of an accident to an employee, while using an appliance furnished by an employer, raises no presumption that the appliance is defective or the employer is negligent. If the employee alleges that he has suffered injuries, resulting from a defective machine, he must prove that the defect'produced the injuries.</p> <p>2. In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff, who was an employee in defendant’s mill, assigned to work at a cloth drying machine, testified that, while adjusting cloth around a roller of the machine, which was supposed to remain stationary during this operation, the roller suddenly started to revolve, injuring him; that there was a tight and loose pulley at the end of the roller, and that the belt was on the loose pulley at the time; that the tight and loose pulleys were uneven, and he thought on this account the belt must have shifted automatically from the loose to the tight pulley. It was an admitted fact that the roller ceased to revolve immediately after plaintiff’s arm and hands had been caught, and there was no evidence to show what caused it to start. Held, the lower court correctly entered judgment for defendant n. o. v., owing to the entire absence of evidence as to the cause of the accident.</p>