Trainor v. Phila. & R. R.

Citations

• 137 Pa. 148
• 20 A. 632
• 1890 Pa. LEXIS 964

Syllabus

<p>(a) The plaintiff, a coal-handler, was injured while employed about an appliance for the storage of coal, dangerous and unfamiliar to him, and placed in the charge of a fellow-employee during the temporary absence of the regular foreman, the appliance being supplied by a contractor who was to “ erect and operate it” at his own expense:</p> <p>1. The question whether the temporary foreman was competent to manage the appliance having been fairly raised by the evidence, and the trial judge having correctly stated who were fellow-servants, error cannot be assigned to the omission of specific instructions as to the relation of the foreman to the plaintiff, where no request for them was made.</p> <p>2. And after a trial on the merits, it is too late for the defendant then to object that the question whether it had placed a competent man in charge of the work was not raised by the pleadings. Where pleadings would have been amendable of course in the court below, the amendment will be considered as having been made: Jones v. Freyer, 3 W. N. 365; Bolton v. King, 105 Pa. 78.</p> <p>3. The defendant, knowing the dangerous nature of the appliance and that its servants were employed about it, must have known that their safety required a competent person to supervise the work; and, in the absence of evidence that the plaintiff knew the dangerous character of the appliance, the question whether a competent man was placed in charge of it was for the jury.</p> <p>4. A master owes to his servant the duty of providing a reasonably safe place in which to work, and reasonably safe appliances with which to do the work; and the delegation of this duty to an agent, or to an independent contractor, will not relieve the master from responsibility for an injury resulting from his neglect.</p>