Hollis v. Widener

• Citation: 228 Pa. 496,77 A. 819
• Parties: HOLLIS v. WIDENER.
• Decision Date: 01 July 1910
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

77 A. 819
228 Pa. 496

HOLLIS
v.
WIDENER.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

July 1, 1910.

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County.

Action by Edward G. Hollis against Peter A. B. Widener. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

Argued before FELL, C. J., and BROWN, MESTREZAT, POTTER, ELKIN, STEWART, and MOSCHZISKER, JJ.

John F. Lewis and F. C. Adler, for appellant.

S. Morris Wain and John W. Wescott, for appellee.

BROWN, J. On the first trial of this case the plaintiff was the only witness examined, and a nonsuit was entered. In holding that the court below had erred in refusing to take it off, we said, through Mr. Justice Mestrezat: "This is a very close case, and the meager facts disclosed on the trial do not take it out of the realm of doubt. There was but one witness produced and examined at the trial, and his examination on either side was quite unsatisfactory in developing the material facts upon which the case should turn. * * * As we understand the plaintiff's case, he alleges that the place he was assigned to perform the work for which he was employed was unsafe by reason of the failure of the defendant to guard and protect him from the machinery which it was his duty to oil, and the necessity for guarding the machinery was brought to the attention of the employer, or a person representing him, who promised to remove the danger by providing the guards necessary to protect the plaintiff while he was engaged at his work. * * * The plaintiff had been engaged at this work long enough to know the dangers, if any, arising from a defective or negligently constructed platform, and it may be that he assumed the risk of those dangers. But he contends that he rebutted the presumption that he assumed such risk by showing that he notified his employer of the dangerous condition of the platform, and was assured that the danger would be removed, and that he remained at his work solely by reason of this assurance. He claims that the danger to which he was subjected was not so imminent and immediate as to require him to refuse to continue his work, and therefore that the promise of his employer to remove the danger justified him in not at once quitting work." Hollis v. Widener, 221 Pa. 72, 70 Atl. 287. On the trial, resulting in the judgment from which we have this appeal, the facts were fully developed, and there is no difficulty in intelligently passing upon the right of the unfortunate appellee to recover. The plaintiff was an...