Reese v. Clark

Citations

• 146 Pa. 465
• 23 A. 246
• 1892 Pa. LEXIS 1250

Syllabus

<p>1. It is not permissible to guess at the cause of an injury, and assume that it was something for which the defendant was responsible. One who is injured while lawfully on the premises of another, cannot recover damages for the injury, if he fail to show its direct cause, or that it occurred through the negligence of defendant.</p> <p>(a) The plaintiff, an employee in defendant's mill, while engaged in sorting a pile of bricks in front of heavy iron plates, was injured by the fall of the plates from a position in which he had himself helped to place them. He testified that he did not know the cause of the fall, and none was assigned by any witness:</p> <p>2. There being no legitimate inference as to the cause of the fall, except that either the plates were insecurely placed, or their support was taken away or weakened by removal of the bricks in front of them, and plaintiff being himself responsible for both these possible causes, he was not entitled to recover for his injury.</p> <p>3. Nor would proof that some time before the accident the defendant’s manager said to the plaintiff, “ Go ahead with your work; I will take care of the plates,” justify a recovery, at least in the absence of evidence that it was possible to give plaintiff warning in advance of the fall of the plates.</p> <p>4. A workman is under no obligation to continue working in a dangerous place of employment. If he does so, with every opportunity to know the danger, he cannot excuse his own want of care in failing to notice and guard against it, by alleging that his employer promised to do this, and had failed to observe his promise.</p>