Booth v. Stokes
| Citation | 88 A. 490,241 Pa. 349 |
| Decision Date | 28 May 1913 |
| Docket Number | 200,199 |
| Parties | Booth, et al., v. Stokes, Receiver, Appellant |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania |
Argued April 20, 1913
Appeals, Nos. 199 and 200, Jan. T., 1912, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. York Co., Jan. T., 1912, No. 92, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Harry Booth, by his father and next friend Edward Booth, and Edward Booth in his own right, v Henry W. Stokes, Receiver of the York Haven Paper Company. Affirmed.
Trespass to recover damage for personal injuries. Before Ross, J.
From the record it appeared that Harry Booth, one of the plaintiffs, was injured while at work at defendant's mill. Booth was seventeen years old, and had been working at this mill for about two years prior to the time of the accident. Before the day he was hurt, he had not worked upon the pump, in the cleaning of which he was injured, and he had not seen anyone else cleaning it. The pump was operated by gears. There was a partial guard that covered the gears at the point where they meshed and covered the smaller of the gears and about half of the larger gear, leaving about half of the larger gear unguarded. Booth was given no instructions as to how to clean the pump and was not told of dangers that might be encountered in cleaning it. The floor where he stood was covered with oil and was slippery. He laid his hand upon the partial guard above described, to keep from falling against the machinery, and his thumb was caught between the large gear and the guard and was crushed, so that amputation was necessary.
Verdict for Edward Booth for $845.91, and for Harry Booth for $1,560.00, and judgment thereon. Defendant appealed.
Errors assigned, among others, were in refusing to direct a verdict for defendant, and to enter judgment for defendant n.o.v.
The judgment is affirmed.
M. S Niles and H. C. Niles, with them Charles A. May and George E. Neff, for appellant.
J. S. Black, with him C. W. A. Rochow, S. B. Meisenhelder and V. K. Keesey, for appellee.
Before FELL, C.J., BROWN, MESTREZAT, POTTER and MOSCHZISKER, JJ.
The plaintiff alleges that the defendant was negligent in not providing a proper guard on a suction pump as required by the Act of May 2, 1905, P.L. 352, and in failing to give proper instructions and warning of danger to him, a young and inexperienced employee. Both questions were submitted to the jury and found for the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the defendant strenuously argues that there was no sufficient evidence to warrant the jury in finding that the gears or cog-wheels of the pump by which the plaintiff was injured were not properly guarded or that he was not properly instructed as to the performance of his duties. We have examined the evidence carefully and cannot agree with the counsel's contention. In fact, we are inclined to agree with the suggestion of the plaintiff's counsel that the court could have instructed the jury that the machinery was not properly guarded as required by the Act of 1905. The defendant's own witnesses so testified. The factory inspector, called by the defendant, testified that the machinery was not safe to an inexperienced man, and that it would be safer if boxed up entirely. William H. Brounell, an operating and erecting engineer in the employ of the defendant and called by him as a witness, also testified that the machinery, as guarded, was dangerous to inexperienced people.
Section 11 of the Act of May 2, 1905, P.L. 352, requires that "all . . . cogs, gearing, . . . and machinery of every description shall be properly guarded." In McCoy v Wolf Company, 235 Pa. 571, we held that whether in any given case where the evidence is conflicting machinery was properly guarded in contemplation of the Act of 1905 was a question for the jury. It is there said (p. 574): ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Booth v. Stokes
... 88 A. 490241 Pa. 349 BOOTH et al. v. STOKES. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. May 28, 1913. 88 A. 490 Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, York County. Action by Harry Booth, by his father and next friend Edward Booth, and by Edward Booth, in his own right against Henry W. Stokes, receiver, et......