McGrath v. Atlantic Refining Co.

Citations

• 264 Pa. 341
• 107 A. 741
• 1919 Pa. LEXIS 649

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Master and servant — Improper tools — Complaint as to tools — Belying on master’s judgment — Obvious danger — Failure to instruct — Case for jury.</p> <p>1. While an employee assumes all obvious risks incident to his employment, if the work or appliance is not imminently or inevitably dangerous, his dependent position will be taken into consideration, and, if given positive orders to proceed with his work, when complaint is made as to the defective and unsafe condition of tools or appliances, he is not bound to set up his judgment against that of his superior, but may rely on the assurance of the latter that there is no danger.</p> <p>2. A master is presumed to know the probable results from the use, by an uninstructed workman, of unfit tools in work that is likely to cause an accident, and when he knows or should know their condition, he will be responsible for injury resulting.</p> <p>3. In an action by an employee of an oil refining company to recover damages for personal injuries, a judgment on a verdict for plaintiff will be sustained, where the evidence shows that plaintiff was employed as an unskilled laborer loading barrels on steamers, that he was ordered from this work, and directed to knock iron hoops from barrels; that this work required some skill, and was the work of a cooper; that he was given no instruction; that in using a hammer in this work, he found that it was defective, and complained to the foreman; that the latter said “you will have to use it; that is all we got at this time”; and that afterwards, in striking with the hammer, a piece of steel was knocked off a hoop, and imbedded itself in plaintiff’s eye, destroying the sight.</p>