Chabot v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co.

• Decision Date: 07 January 1918
• Docket Number: 6,5
• Parties: Chabot v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

103 A. 283

Chabot v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company, Appellant

259 Pa. 504

Nos. 5, 6

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

January 7, 1918

Argued September 26, 1917

Appeals, Nos. 5 and 6, Oct. T., 1917, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. Armstrong Co., Dec. T., 1915, No. 189, on verdicts for plaintiffs, in case of Frederick Chabot and Paul Chabot by his father and next friend, Frederick Chabot, v Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company. Affirmed.

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

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

Verdict for plaintiff, Frederick Chabot, for $741.51, and for plaintiff, Paul Chabot, for $4,258.49 and judgments thereon. Defendant appealed.

Errors assigned were in refusing to direct a verdict for defendant and in refusing to enter judgment for defendant n.o.v.

Judgment affirmed.

Wm. S. Dalzell, of Dalzell, Fisher & Hawkins, with him R. L. Ralston, for appellants. -- The defendant was not guilty of negligence: Miller v. American Bridge Co., 216 Pa. 559; Coleman v. Keenan, 223 Pa. 29; Wilson v. Brown, 222 Pa. 364; Iams v. Glass Co., 251 Pa. 439.

Harry C. Golden, with him E. O. Golden, for appellees. -- No list of minors in the employ of the defendant was kept on file, as required by Section 7 of the Act of April 29, 1909, P.L. 283. The defendant is, therefore, liable for injuries to the minor: Krutlies v. Bulls Head Coal Co., 249 Pa. 162.

When the employment of a minor is shown to be illegal there is evidence of negligence, and if the injury complained of occur in the course of the minor's services under such unlawful circumstances, the law will refer the injury to the original wrong for its proximate cause: Stehle v. Jaeger Automatic Machine Co., 225 Pa. 348; Syneszewski v. Schmidt, 153 Mich. 438; Krutlies v. Bulls Head Coal Co., 249 Pa. 162; Stehle v. Jaeger Automatic Machine Co., 220 Pa. 617; Lenahan v. Pittston Coal Mining Co., 218 Pa. 311; Sullivan v. Hanover Cordage Co., 222 Pa. 40; McElhone v. Philadelphia Quartette Club, 53 Pa.Super. 262.

Before MESTREZAT, POTTER, STEWART, MOSCHZISKER and FRAZER, JJ.

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE MESTREZAT:

This judgment is so clearly right, as demonstrated by the learned trial judge in his opinion refusing a new trial and judgment non obstante veredicto for defendant, that no extended discussion of the questions at issue is necessary. The action was brought by an employee against his employer to recover damages for injuries which the former alleged he sustained by reason of the latter's negligence. The negligence averred was the failure to furnish the plaintiff a reasonably safe place to perform the service for which he was employed, and that defendant engaged the plaintiff to do work for which a boy of his age, fourteen years, should not have been employed. It appears that the plaintiff was employed in defendant company's glass plant at Ford City, and his work consisted in hauling plates of polished glass from the wash-house to the cutters' department on a small truck and placing the glass in racks immediately behind and near the cutters' table. On the day of the accident and while the plaintiff was removing a plate of glass from the truck he collided with the cutter by reason of an alleged lack of space where they had to do their work, which caused the plate of glass in the hands of the plaintiff to fall, striking the latter's foot and injuring it. The learned counsel for appellant contend that there was ample room between the cutters' table and the rack within which the plaintiff and the cutter could move in perfect safety and the plaintiff could perform the work required, and that the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries was a pure accident resulting from a collision between the two employees moving about in the ordinary pursuit of their duties. The evidence was sufficient to justify submitting the question to the jury, and in doing so the learned trial judge said: "Now the plaintiffs contend that this space of three and a half feet between the rack and the cutters' table was insufficient in size and room for Paul Chabot to do his work, the work that he was engaged to do and which he was to do. That because it was so narrow, the collision occurred between him and Mr. Mause while they were both engaged in doing their respective work there, and that therefore this place, where it was necessary for both Paul Chabot and Mr. Mause to work in the performance of their duty, was not a reasonably safe place for Paul Chabot to do his work, and that by reason thereof an injury...