Mixter v. Imperial Coal Co.

Citations

• 152 Pa. 395
• 25 A. 587
• 1893 Pa. LEXIS 988

Syllabus

<p>[Marked to be reported.]</p> <p>Negligence — Master and servant — Evidence.</p> <p>In an action by an employee against his employer to recover damages for personal injuries, the mere fact of the accident is not enough to establish negligence. There must be additional and affirmative proof of the particular negligence which caused the accident'.</p> <p>■ Defects in machinery — Knowledge by master.</p> <p>In order that an employer may be held liable to an employee for negligence arising from some defect in the machinery or appliances used by the employee at the time of the accident, it is not enough to show that the defect existed at the moment of the accident. It must also appear that the master had an opportunity of previous knowledge, or that the facts were such that he ought to have known of the defect.</p> <p>In an action by a brakeman to recover damages for personal injuries, evidence that the brake was out of order at the time of the accident, and that the plaintiff was thereby unable to control the car, so that it rah away with him, is insufficient in itself to establish the negligence of the master.</p> <p>Practice in Supreme Court — New venire.</p> <p>Where an action against a master was tried upon an erroneous theory as to proof of negligence, no negligence in fact being proven, the Supreme Court will grant.a new venire in the interest of justice, so that an opportunity may be afforded to show other facts, if there are such, tend ing to show the master’s liability.</p>