Lehman v. Carbon Steel Co.

• Citation: 54 A. 475,204 Pa. 612
• Decision Date: 05 January 1903
• Docket Number: 144
• Parties: Lehman v. Carbon Steel Company, Appellant
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

54 A. 475

204 Pa. 612

Lehman v. Carbon Steel Company, Appellant

No. 144

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

January 5, 1903

Argued November 5, 1902

Appeal, No. 144, Oct. T., 1902, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. No. 1, Allegheny County, June T., 1901, No. 373, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Peter Lehman v. Carbon Steel Company. Reversed.

Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before STOWE, P.J.

The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court.

The court refused binding instructions for defendant.

Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $2,675. Defendant appealed.

Error assigned was in refusing binding instructions for defendant.

The judgment is reversed, and judgment is now entered for the defendant.

Homer L. Castle, with him William A. Stone and Stephen Stone, for appellant, cited: Titus v. Bradford R.R. Co., 136 Pa. 618; Service v. Shoneman, 196 Pa. 63; Leonard v Herrmann, 195 Pa. 222.

F. C McFirr, with him John Marron, for appellee, cited: Reese v. Clark, 198 Pa. 312.

Before MITCHELL, DEAN, FELL, BROWN, MESTREZAT and POTTER, JJ.

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE FELL:

This judgment cannot be sustained on any ground that does not practically make an employer the insurer of the safety of his workmen. The plaintiff was employed to assist in operating a machine which sheared steel plates. He was a skilled workman and had worked at this machine seven months. His business was to mark the plates, put them in position on the machine, and guide them so that the shears would cut to the line marked. On the day before the accident, it was observed that some of the plates were so hard that they could not be sheared successfully. Sparks flew from them, large pieces chipped out, and the edges of the shears were broken. A workman employed at the machine told the foreman of the department of this. The latter examined the plates, and according to the plaintiff's testimony told the men to go on with the work; according to his testimony he told them to cut into scraps the plates that were too hard to be sheared. The shears were changed, and the work continued for the remainder of that day as usual, most of the plates being sheared without difficulty, but occasionally one was found from which sparks flew. The next morning, after working two hours, the plaintiff placed on the machine a plate of unusual hardness, which, when the shears came on it, shifted from its position so that he was not able to cut it to the line. ...