Vilsock v. Youghiogheny & Ohio Coal Co.

Citations

• 256 Pa. 90
• 100 A. 530
• 1917 Pa. LEXIS 568

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Master and servant — Safe and unsafe method of service — Mining — Moving electric motor cars — Damnum absque injuria — Assumption of rish.</p> <p>1. Where two ways of discharging a service are apparent to an employee, one dangerous and the other safe or reasonably so, the employee must select the latter whether or not it is the. less eonvenient to him; if he chooses the former and the danger is such that a reasonably prudent man would not incur the risk under the same circumstances he is guilty of such negligence as will bar a recovery although the master may also have been negligent.</p> <p>2. In an action by an eighteen-year-old plaintiff against his employer, a coal mining corporation, to recover damages for personal injuries, a verdict and judgment for plaintiff cannot be sustained, where it appears that plaintiff’s foot came in contact with a lump of coal beside the track while he was attempting to jump upon the brake rod at the side of a moving electric motor; that the plaintiff was familiar with the operation of such motors and with his duties as brakeman thereof; that riding on the side of the moving motor was no necessary part of such duties and was manifestly dangerous.</p> <p>3. The mere fact that the presence of the lump of coal beside the track contributed to the accident is not enough to convict defendant of actionable negligence, where plaintiff had full notice of its presence.</p> <p>. 4. In such casé it is immaterial that the plaintiff may have complained to his superiors of the presence of the lump of coal and that the latter had promised to remove it, since the accident was ascribable to the plaintiff’s failure to go about the performance of his duties in the safe and efficient method that the circumstances afforded.</p>