Carll v. Brown

• Citation: 96 A. 647,251 Pa. 273
• Decision Date: 03 January 1916
• Docket Number: 234
• Parties: Carll, Appellant, v. Brown
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

96 A. 647

251 Pa. 273

Carll, Appellant, v. Brown

No. 234

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

January 3, 1916

Argued September 28, 1915

Appeal, No. 234, Oct. T., 1915, by plaintiff, from judgment of C.P. Forest Co., Feb. T., 1914, No. 18, refusing to take off nonsuit in case of Warren Carll v. Frank K. Brown. Affirmed.

Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before HINCKLEY P.J. The accident occurred in defendant's lumber mill.

Further facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court.

The court entered a nonsuit which it subsequently refused to take off. Plaintiff appealed.

Error assigned was the refusal to take off the nonsuit.

The assignment of error is overruled, and the judgment is affirmed.

Edmond C. Breene, with him Wm. J. Breene and A. C. Brown, for appellant.

F. J Maffett, with him T. F. Richey and H. M. Rimer, for appellee.

Before BROWN, C.J., MESTREZAT, POTTER, STEWART, MOSCHZISKER and FRAZER, JJ.

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE POTTER:

This is an appeal from the refusal of the court below to take off a judgment of compulsory nonsuit. The defendant was charged with negligence in failing to properly guard dangerous machinery. The trial judge entered judgment of compulsory nonsuit on the ground of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. The latter was employed to clean up the floor of defendant's saw mill after the day's work was finished, and to oil the machinery. An oil cup was located three or four inches below the point where the cogs of a vertical and a horizontal shaft intermeshed. In order to reach the cup plaintiff would get up on the table which held the rolls, reach over the shaft, holding the oil can in his right hand, and pour the oil into the cup. He did this when the band-saw was being changed, which occurred once or twice a day. At that time the rolls were stopped, but the shafts continued in motion all day. Plaintiff was not instructed to oil the shaft in this way or in any particular way, but merely to oil the rolls and the shafting. He worked at the mill cleaning up in the evening and might have oiled the shaft at that time with perfect safety. It was necessary to oil but once a day. On the day of the accident, it appears that while the shafts and cogs were in motion, plaintiff got upon the table on his knees, placed his left hand on top of the table and held the oil can in his right hand, reaching below the cogs as far as he could, and turned the...