Richlands Iron Co. v. Elkins

Citations

• 90 Va. 249
• 17 S.E. 890
• 1893 Va. LEXIS 42

Syllabus

<p>1. Employees — Risks—Instructions.—In action by employee for personal injuries, it is not error to instruct that a servant entering upon dangerous employment assumes all incident risks, but not extraordinary risks arising from defective machinery, unless he has knowledge thereof, and chooses to remain in the employment.</p> <p>2. Idem — Duty of Employer. — Nor is it error to instruct that it is employer’s duty to use ordinary care to provide reasonably safe and suitable machinery, and that in absence of notice to the contrary, employee is war-rented in assuming that employer has performed his duty in so providing. Improvement Co. v. Andrews, 86 Va., 27.</p> <p>3. Idem — Questions by Jury. — After instructions to jury and they have retired and returned and stated their inability to agree, it is not error to give them further instructions upon questions submitted by them and discussed by court and counsel for both parties in absence of the jury.</p> <p>4. Employee — Defective Machinery — Case at Bar. — Where employer leaves a large rapidly revolving cogwheel unprotected, so that tongs carrying large masses of iron are liable to be caught and taken into it and the pieces thrown all about the room with such force as to kill any person with whom they come in contact, after having been warned by a skilled workmen to encase it, such employer held liable for an injury to an employee resulting from the tongs catching in the cogs.</p> <p>5. Verdict — Damages.—A verdict of §2,500 for an injury to an employee— breaking his skull so that a part has to be removed, leaving the brain unprotected — by which his capacity to work is very much impaired, held, not excessive.</p>