Van Duzer v. Commonwealth Telephone Co.

Citations

• 246 Pa. 148
• 92 A. 79
• 1914 Pa. LEXIS 485

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Master and servant — Telephone companies — Defective climbing harness — Contributory negligence — Case for jury.</p> <p>In an action against a telephone company to recover damages for personal injuries, the case is for the jury and a verdict for the plaintiff -will be sustained, where there is evidence that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant to aid in the construction of its lines, although he was without experience at this kind of work; that the defendant’s superintendent furnished him, for the purpose of climbing poles, an appliance in the nature of a harness which fitted to the body, although the superintendent knew two weeks before the accident that the harness was defective; that the superintendent told plaintiff that the harness was “perfectly safe; you cannot fall in them; and you can do this work as well as any one”; that due to a defect in the metallic snap fastened to the end of the harness, plaintiff fell and suffered the injuries complained of; and that the defect in the snap was not apparent at a glance.</p> <p>Van Duzer v. Commonwealth Telephone Company, 236 Pa. 538, followed.</p>