Naylor v. Frick Co.

Citations

• 56 Pa. Super. 165
• 1914 Pa. Super. LEXIS 62

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Master and servant — Defective machine — Notice to master — Promise to repair.</p> <p>1. Where one of several workmen call the attention of their employer’s superintendent to a defect in a machine, and the superintendent promises in the presence of all of the workmen to fix it, the other workmen present have as much right to rely on the promise as the particular workman who called attention to the defect.</p> <p>2. In such a ease where the repair would only have taken fifteen or twenty minutes, and a workman who had relied on the promise is injured by reason of the defect only four hours afterwards, his right to recover damages is not barred by his continuance at work, if he testifies that he believed that the repair had been made, and a possible inference can be drawn from the evidence that by reason of his position in doing his work he could not see whether the repair had been made or not.</p> <p>Practice, C. P. — Trial—Jury.</p> <p>3. In a personal injuries case a judgment for the plaintiff will not be reversed because at the trial, the judge observed certain employees of the defendant among the jurors, and suggested that they should be excused by consent of counsel, and counsel chose to consent to the withdrawal of the jurors in question.</p>