Titus v. Bradford etc. R.

Citations

• 136 Pa. 618
• 26 W.N.C. 472
• 20 A. 517
• 1890 Pa. LEXIS 1055

Syllabus

<p>1. From the fact that a particular method or appliance is dangerous, it does not follow that it is negligence for an employer to use it. Some employments are essentially hazardous; and the unbending test of negligence, in methods, machinery and appliances, is the ordinary usage of the business.</p> <p>2. An employer performs his duty when he furnishes appliances of ordi nary character and reasonable safety, and the former is the test of the latter. For, in regard to the style of the implement, or the nature of the mode of performance of a work, “ reasonably safe ” means safe, aceording to the usages, habits and ordinary risks of the business.</p> <p>2 In an action for the death of a brakeman, the negligence charged was 618 the use of a particular broad-gauge ear body upon a narrow-gauge truck,</p> <p>I not adapted thereto. The carriage of broad-gauge cars upon narrow-gauge trucks, was a part of defendant’s ordinary business, and cars like the one referred to had been carried quite often:</p> <p>3. In the absence of proof that the carrying of this car, in the manner complained of, was an unusual occurrence on the road of defendant company, and the plaintiff’s testimony showing that the brakeman accepted his employment with full knowledge of the practice of thus carrying such cars and the risks incident thereto, there could be no recovery for the injuries received.</p>