Roszina v. Howard Gas Coal Co.

Citations

• 251 Pa. 298
• 96 A. 716
• 1916 Pa. LEXIS 462

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Master and servant — Inexperienced employee — Duty to instruct — Goal cutting machine — Evidence—Exclusion—Reversible error.</p> <p>1. Tbe duty of a master to instruct an inexperienced employee in the use of dangerous machinery is personal and nothing but performance can relieve the master; if the duty is delegated to another the master still remains responsible for its proper performance by such person.</p> <p>2. The master is not required to give warning against such dangers as are open and apparent to the ordinary observer and the subject of common knowledge.</p> <p>3. Where in an action against a coal mining company to recover damages for the death of plaintiff’s husband, resulting from injuries sustained while operating a coal cutting machine, it appeared that deceased was inexperienced in the operation of such machines, that he was a foreigner who had been in defendant’s employ but two months and had been at work on such machine but four and a half days, during which time the only instruction he received was from the machine boss, who did not speak decedent’s language, and who visited and remained at the machine from but fifteen to thirty minutes several times a day, the court erred in entering a compulsory nonsuit and in rejecting plaintiff’s offers to prove the dangers incident to the operation of such machines and the extent of the instruction and training necessary, and that the instruction given deceased was insufficient.</p>