Yeager v. Anthracite Brewing Co.

Citations

• 259 Pa. 123
• 102 A. 418
• 1917 Pa. LEXIS 529

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Master and servant — Brewing company — Moving machinery — Change in operation — Increased danger — Failure, to notify employee — Contributory negligence — Instructions to jury— Failure to request — Faming power — Charge of court — Pleading— Variance.</p> <p>1. If the operation of a machine prior to changes is not attended with danger and changes, involving danger, are made without notice to or knowledge of an employee and in the exercise of ordinary prudence he would not observe such changes, it is the duty of the employer to' notify him thereof, and failure to do so is negligence.</p> <p>2. In an action by an employee against a brewing company to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from his arm being ca.ught in the revolving cogs of a machine, the questions of defendant’s negligence and the contributory negligence of the plaintiff were for the jury and a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff will be sustained where it appeared that it was the duty of the plaintiff, who was on night turn, to remove from time to time the malt which accumulated in.the gear boxes' of the malt dryer, a cylindrical drum revolving by means of cogwheels connected with the driving shaft; that in the performance of such services plaintiff was required to go to the rear of a chute which fed the dryer and to stand within a narrow space between the chute and reach over the gear, which had for many years been revolving outward and was therefore not dangerous; that nine days prior to the accident defendant changed the operation of the cogwheels so that they revolved inward instead of outward; that defendant did not notify plaintiff of such change and plaintiff was not aware thereof and could not observe same on account of the darkness of the place and the rapidity with which the cogs revolved; and while in the act of removing the malt his arm was caught in the cogs and he sustained the injuries complained of.</p> <p>3. In such case the plaintiff was justified in assum