Schaefer v. Consolidated Ice Co.

Citations

• 238 Pa. 367
• 86 A. 193
• 1913 Pa. LEXIS 975

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Master and servant — Guarding machinery — Flywheel — Contributory negligence — Act of May 2, 1905, P. L. 852— Case for jury.</p> <p>1. In an action against an employer to recover damages for the death of plaintiff’s husband by reason of his being caught in a revolving fly-wheel in defendant’s ice plant the case is for the jury and a verdict for the plaintiff will he sustained where the evidence, though in conflict, justifies a finding that the wheel in which the deceased was injured was not properly guarded; that he was at the time of the accident in the course of his employment; and it does not appear that he was guilty of contributory negligence.</p> <p>2. In such a case it is for the jury to determine whether or not an artificial guard for the fly-wheel was required under the provisions of the Act of May 2, 1905, P. L. 352, for the protection of employees.</p>