O'Donnell v. Bell Telephone Co.

Citations

• 250 Pa. 440
• 95 A. 579
• 1915 Pa. LEXIS 966

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Master and servant — Telephone company — Lineman injured by fall of pole — Inspection—Evidence—Assumption of rish.</p> <p>1. While an employee is deemed to assume such risks as are ordinarily and reasonably connected with his employment and is presumed to have notice of those dangers which are obvious, yet the employer is charged with the duty of maintaining and keeping in reasonably safe repair the instrumentalities or appliances used in the operation of the business so as not to expose the employee to dangers not ordinarily or reasonably incident to the employment.</p> <p>2. In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, it appeared that plaintiff, a lineman in the employ of defendant telephone company, was injured by the falling of a pole while he was engaged in removing wires from the cross arms located near the top. The work was in charge of a foreman of defendant company under whom plaintiff was working and from whom he received orders. The testimony showed that the pole was decayed at the base and had been in use for a period of ten or fifteen years. There was no evidence when, if ever, the pole had been inspected and no evidence to show a customary method of inspecting such poles or that defendant company had any rule relating to their inspection or had made any effort to maintain its poles in proper repair. Plaintiff had no knowledge of the defective condition of the pole and there was nothing in its appearance to put him on notice of danger. Defendant offered no evidence and the trial judge refused a motion for a nonsuit and submitted the case to the jury, who returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Held, no error.</p> <p>3. The proximate cause of the injury, under the above recited facts, was not .the cutting of the wires by a fellow workman but the breaking of the pole, which resulted from its decayed and unsafe condition.</p>