Payne v. Reese

• Decision Date: 01 May 1882
• Citation: 100 Pa. 301
• Parties: Payne <I>versus</I> Reese.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

100 Pa. 301

Payne versus Reese.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

April 13, 1881.

May 1, 1882.

April 13th 1881.

Before SHARSWOOD, C. J., MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON, TRUNKEY, and STERRETT, JJ. GREEN, J., absent

ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne county: Of January Term 1882, No. 180.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Palmer, De Witt & Fuller, for the plaintiffs in error.— The instruction that an employer is bound to furnish the "best methods and the safest machinery" was erroneous. The true rule is that "When the employer furnishes his men with tools and appliances which though not the best possible, may by ordinary care be used without danger, he has discharged his duty and is not responsible for accidents:" Railroad Co. v. Sentmeyer, 11 Norr. 276; Philadelphia & Reading R. R. Co. v. Scherte, 10 W. N. C. 125.

The facts as proved showed clearly contributory negligence per se, by the plaintiff below, and the court should have withdrawn the case from the jury, or have directed a verdict in our favor, as requested in our eighth point: Hoag v. Railroad Co., 4 Norris 293; King v. Thompson, 6 Norris 369; Honor v. Albrighton, 12 Norris 475; Railroad Co. v. Sentmeyer, 11 Norris 276; Hagan v. Railroad Co., 10 W. N. C. 360; Railroad Co. v. Aspell, 11 Harris 147; Boys v. Railroad Co., 2 W. N. C. 198; Railroad Co. v. Bock, 9 W. N. C. 281; Railway Co. v. Bresmer, 10 W. N. C. 379; Railroad Co. v. Zebe, 9 Casey 318; Railroad Co. v. McClurg, 6 P. F. S. 294; Nagle v. Railroad Co., 6 W. N. C. 510; Mulherrin v. D. L. & W. R. R. Co., 31 P. F. S. 366; Railroad Co. v. Beale, 23 P. F. S. 504; Waters v. Wing, 9 P. F. S. 211.

John Lynch, D. M. Jones and Edward A. Lynch, for the defendant in error.—The portion of the charge assigned for error when read in connection with the whole charge was not calculated to mislead the jury, and is not ground for reversal: Penna. R. R. Co. v. Werner, 8 Norris 66; Relf v. Rapp, 3 W. & S. 27. The question of contributory negligence was one for the jury, and was submitted under proper instructions. The natural instincts which lead men in their sober senses to avoid injury and preserve life, is an element of evidence, and in all questions touching the conduct of men, their motives, felling, and natural instincts, are allowed weight and to constitute evidence for the consideration of courts and juries: Allen v. Willard, 7 P. F. S. 374.

When the employer is cognizant of a latent risk of which the employee has no knowledge or obvious means of knowledge, the employer is liable to the employee for hurt received by the latter through such risks and this follows even in cases where the servant knew the machinery to be defective, if the particular injury does not arise from the known defect: Wharton on Negligence, § 208; Patterson v. The Pittsburg & Connelsville R. R. Co., 1 W. N. C. 569; Oakland R. R. Co. v. Fielding, 48 Penna St. R. 320. O'Donnell v. Allegheny V. R. R. Co., 59 Penna. St. 239.

Mr. Justice GORDON delivered the opinion of the court, May 1st 1882.

That that part of the charge of the court below which is embraced in the first assignment of error announces a legal proposition that cannot be sustained, in a case like the present, is now so well settled that a discussion of it is unnecessary. An employer is not bound to furnish for his workmen the "safest" machinery, nor to provide the "best methods" for its operation, in order to save himself from responsibility for accidents resulting from its use. If the machinery be of an ordinary character, and such as can, with reasonable care, be used without danger to the employee, it is all that can be required from the employer; this is the limit of his responsibility, and the sum total of his duty: Railroad Co. v. Sentmeyer, 11 Nor. 276. We suppose this part of the learned judge's charge to have been a mere matter of inadvertence, for elsewhere in that charge his instruction on this branch of the...