Stine v. S. Morgan Smith Co.

Citations

• 219 Pa. 145
• 67 A. 990
• 1907 Pa. LEXIS 616

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Master and servant — Contributory negligence — Unsafe appliance — Evidence—Case for jury.</p> <p>In an action by a moulder in a foundry against his employer to recover damages for personal injuries, it appeared that the plaintiff at the time of the accident was smoothing with a stick a sand bed, over which there was suspended, about two feet from it, a flask weighing several thousand pounds. In smoothing the bed he put his hand and part of his arm under the flask, and, as he was withdrawing it, the flask fell and crushed it. The flask was suspended by a cable fastened to a crane. The falling of the flask was due to the pulling out of the end of the cable fastened to the crane, and called the dead end. This dead end, after it had pulled out, presented a smooth and straight appearance. It was shown that before the accident its wires stuck straight up above the cone, and were not bent over it to make the fastening more secure, and it appeared from the testimony of an expert, that the proper and safe way of fastening the cable was to bend the ends of the wires over the cone, hammer them down, and fill the cone with material by a process known as babbitting, and that when the dead end was so fastened it was impossible for it to pull out. Plaintiff testified that he was doing the work under instructions and in the manner which was customary, that he had no warning of danger, and that he did not think he was in danger in doing the work in the manner which he adopted. Held, that the question of the defendant’s negligence and plaintiff’s contributory negligence, was for the jury, and that a verdict and judgment for plaintiff should be sustained.</p> <p>Under the facts as proved by the plaintiff’s witnesses the rule was recognized that an employer is presumed to have knowledge of structural defects in the machinery or appliances furnished by him to his workmen.</p>