Valjago v. Carnegie Steel Co.

Citations

• 226 Pa. 514
• 75 A. 728
• 1910 Pa. LEXIS 808

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Master and servant — Contributory negligence — Assumption of risk — Act of May 2, 1905, P. L. 352 — Volenti non fit injuria— Words and phrases.</p> <p>1. In a claim for negligence by an employee against his employer the maxim “volenti non fit injuria” cannot be invoked by the defendant unless he shows that the plaintiff not only knew the circumstances but that he also appreciated the full extent of the danger to which he was exposed by his employment, and that he voluntarily exposed himself to it. This makes the question of the assumption of risk one of fact, unless from the nature of the case it is clear of dispute in this connection.</p> <p>2. In a suit for damages by a workingman for injuries received by being caught in uncovered cogwheels, where there is evidence that the plaintiff, was a foreigner, with limited understanding of the English language; that he was not familiar with machinery, had never worked about cogwheels or gears until a few days before the accident, was given no instructions as to the duties and risks of his work, and that at no time previous to the accident, had the wheels been in motion when the plaintiff was performing duties similar to those he was engaged on at the time he was injured, it is not error for the trial judge to refuse to hold as a matter of law that the danger of working near the uncovered cogwheels was so open and obvious that the plaintiff had assumed a known risk, but this is a disputed question of fact and properly left to the jury.</p> <p>3. The defense of assumption of risk is not open to an employer whose employee is injured through a neglect to provide safeguards required by the Act of May 2, 1905, P. L. 352.</p> <p>4. The requirements of a statute adopted in the exercise of the police powers of the state for the protection of its citizens, cannot be impliedly waived by the parties to the contract of employment.</p>