Melchert v. Smith Brewing Co.

Citations

• 140 Pa. 448
• 27 W.N.C. 477
• 21 A. 755
• 1891 Pa. LEXIS 859

Syllabus

<p>1. The mere fact of the occurrence of an injury to a workman, in the course of his employment, raises no presumption of negligence on the part,of the employer; and for such an injury, the employee can recover against the employer only upon making affirmative proof that the defendant’s culpable negligence produced it.</p> <p>2. In rare instances, such as that presented by the case of Rummel v. Dilworth, 131 Pa. 509, it has been held that the employment of young and inexperienced persons to work amidst dangerous machinery, imposes upon the master the duty of warning such employees of the latent dangers involved in their work:</p> <p>3. But this kind of liability is a very refined one at best, and the essential fact of the existence of the alleged latent danger, as the source of a consequent duty as to information, must necessarily be established clearly, before any charge of negligence in that respect can be sustained: Per Mr. Justice Gbeen.</p> <p>4. When the work and the place are not dangerous, and the materials are those in common use, there is no liability of the master to an employee, injured by an accident, as for a breach of the duly of protection by previous instruction and warning: Allison Mfg. Co. v. McCormick, 118 Pa. 519 ; Gillen v. Rowley, 134 Pa. 209 ; Zurn v. Tetlow, 134 Pa. 213.</p>