Amiano v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Company
| Decision Date | 02 January 1912 |
| Docket Number | 211 |
| Parties | Amiano, Appellant, v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Company |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued October 12, 1911
Appeal, No. 211, Oct. T., 1911, by plaintiff, from judgment of C.P. Beaver Co., June T., 1909, No. 333, on verdict for defendant in case of Tony Amiano v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Company. Reversed.
Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before HOLT, P.J.
Tony Amiano, the plaintiff, was employed by the defendant company at its works in Pittsburg. He was employed as a laborer and to do odd jobs about the mill. In the afternoon of December 12, 1907, he was engaged in cleaning a drill press with waste and oil. The drill press was one of a series or row of presses, immediately behind which ran a line of shafting. While engaged in cleaning the press the plaintiff had his trousers caught by the shafting, he himself receiving the injuries on which the suit was based.
The court directed a verdict for the defendant and judgment was entered thereon.
Error assigned was in directing a verdict for the defendant.
Judgment reversed and a venire facias de novo awarded.
George C. Bradshaw, with him John A. Elliott, for appellant. -- The Act of May 2, 1905, P.L. 352, has been construed by the Supreme Court of this state to mean that, if the act is disobeyed by the person responsible for the operation of the shop in which the machinery is situated, that person will be liable for any injury the proximate cause of which is the failure to guard said machinery: Jones v. American Caramel Co., 225 Pa. 644; Valjago v. Carnegie Steel Co., 226 Pa. 514.
The question of plaintiff's contributory negligence was for the jury: Jones v. Caramel Co., 225 Pa. 644; Valjago v. Carnegie Steel Co., 226 Pa. 514; Solt v Radiator Co., 231 Pa. 585.
J. F. Reed, for appellee, cited: Sturtz v. R.R. Co., 225 Pa. 249; Vant v. Roelofs, 217 Pa. 535; Jones v. American Caramel Co., 225 Pa. 644.
Before FELL, C.J., BROWN, MESTREZAT, POTTER, ELKIN, STEWART and MOSCHZISKER, JJ.
At the trial the learned court below gave binding instructions for the defendant upon the ground that there was no evidence to show that the person who directed the plaintiff to clean the drill press had the authority to assign that duty to him. In other words, that the burden was upon the plaintiff to establish by the preponderance of the evidence that the foreman, or boss, or other person who directed him to clean the machine at the time of the accident, was a vice principal. This is clearly an erroneous view of the situation. No question relating to the duties or authority of a vice principal was involved in this case. The evidence is ample to show that appellant was employed as a laborer in and around the mill and was engaged in the performance of duties assigned to him when the injuries were sustained. The testimony also shows that a foreman, called by appellant "the boss," directed him to clean the drill press. It is also in evidence that he had been employed as a common laborer in and around the mill for several months prior to the time of the accident. Under the facts thus established there can be no question as to the existence of the relation of employer and employee. In order to entitle appellant to recover under the facts of the present case, it is not necessary to show that he was employed by a vice principal, or that he was assigned to clean the drill press by...
To continue reading
Request your trial