Riley v. Pittston Coal Mining Co.
| Decision Date | 17 May 1909 |
| Docket Number | 306 |
| Citation | 73 A. 944,224 Pa. 633 |
| Parties | Riley, Appellant, v. Pittston Coal Mining Company |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued April 12, 1909
Appeal, No. 306, Jan. T., 1908, by plaintiffs, from order of C.P. Luzerne Co., May T., 1906, No. 359, refusing to take off nonsuit in case of Francis Riley, by his next friend and father, Anthony Riley, and said Anthony Riley in his own right v. The Pittston Coal Mining Company. Affirmed.
Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before HALSEY, J.
At the trial the court entered a nonsuit saying:
The allegation of the plaintiff is that this machinery was constructed in violation of the mine act of 1891, and as a result of such construction this boy plaintiff was injured that there was negligence on the part of defendant and as a consequence the defendant ought to be responsible for the injury that plaintiff received. The mine act of 1891 provides that no person under fifteen years of age shall be appointed to oil the machinery, and no person shall oil dangerous parts of such machinery while it is in motion. You will recall the testimony of young Riley that he went to this moving machinery on the opposite side of this sprocket wheel where the box is, that he had an oil can with a spout on it six or seven inches long, that he oiled the box, the journal that was in the box, and that having oiled that part of it, he started around the end of the box for the purpose of reaching the box on this side in which the journal was located, to oil that, and while he was in motion for the purpose of reaching the box on the opposite side where the journal was, for the purpose of oiling it, he slipped upon the sheet-iron and went down into the sprocket wheel and was injured.
The rule of law is that it matters not how negligent the defendant may be, if the plaintiff himself is negligent in the slightest degree which inured and resulted in and caused him the injury for which he brings his action, he cannot recover. He was there and oiled that journal in that box when it was in motion. He started around to oil the journal in the opposite box while the machinery was in motion, and he slipped upon the sheet-iron and went down into the box and was injured, and therefore he violated this part of the act of assembly: "And no person shall oil dangerous parts of machinery while it is in motion." He was guilty of negligence in oiling this machinery while it was in motion and under this act of assembly is responsible for his negligence and therefore it becomes our duty to sustain this motion for a nonsuit. The nonsuit is allowed with the usual rule to show cause why the same shall not be taken off.
Error assigned was refusal to take off nonsuit.
Judgment affirmed.
Thomas F. Farrell, with him James L. Lenahan, for appellants. -- The proof is that the plaintiff, at the time he fell under the wheel, was not actually engaged in oiling the machinery, but was walking around from one oil box to the other. The prohibition of the statute applies only to the actual act of oiling while the machinery is in motion.
We maintain that the proximate and sole efficient cause of this accident was the presence of the piece of sheet-iron upon which plaintiff slipped, which was negligently erected and maintained by defendant in proximity to the machinery in which plaintiff was injured. Plaintiff's alleged violation of the statute by oiling the machinery while in motion, and his presence about the machinery for that purpose, was only the condition that made the accident possible; it merely furnished the occasion of the accident, but was not the cause of it and in no way contributed to it as a cause: Farley v. Charleston Basket, etc., Co., 51 S.C. 222 (28 S.E. Repr. 193); Baughman v. Railroad Co., 92 Pa. 335; Railway Co. v. Boudrou, 92 Pa. 475; Creed v. Railroad Co., 86 Pa. 139; Artherholt v. Motor Co., 27 Pa.Super. 141; Sharrer v. Paxson, 171 Pa. 26; Gray v. Scott, 66 Pa. 345; Besecker v. Railroad Co., 220 Pa. 507; McCabe v. Philadelphia, 217 Pa. 140; Gannon v. Wilson, 18 W.N.C. 7; Hollis v. Widener, 221 Pa. 72.
The parts of the machinery oiled by the plaintiff in this case were not "dangerous parts" in contemplation of the statute; and it was at least for the jury to say whether the machinery and the act of oiling it were of such a dangerous character as to convict plaintiff of contributory negligence: Kay v. Fredrigal, 3 Pa. 221; Carn v. Fillman, 10 W.N.C. 152; Lenahan v. Coal Mining Co., 12 L.R.A. (N.S.) 463; Gallenkamp v. Garvin Machine Co., 179 N.Y. 588 (72 N.E. Repr. 1142); Sullivan v. Cordage Co., 222 Pa. 40; Stehle v. Machine Co., 220 Pa. 617; Coolbroth v. Penna. R.R. Co., 209 Pa. 433; Ryan v. Ardis, 190 Pa. 66; Merriman v. Phillipsburg Boro., 158 Pa. 78.
Benjamin R. Jones, with him Lawrence B. Jones, for appellee. -- The lower court held, and very properly, that even though defendant were negligent in the matter alleged, the plaintiff's negligence in oiling this machinery while it was in motion, in violation of the statute, was contributory, and prevented recovery: Lenahan v. Pittston Coal Mining Co., 218 Pa. 311; Best v. Staple Co., 218 Pa. 202.
Both the first and second declarations contain admissions that the machinery in question is dangerous, and such admissions may properly be taken as the statement of the plaintiff himself that the fact is so: 1 Greenleaf on Evidence, sec. 171; Truby v. Seybert, 12 Pa. 101; Frost v. Hirsch, 16 Pa. Dist. Rep. 831.
Before MITCHELL, C.J., FELL, BROWN, POTTER and ELKIN, JJ.
Appellant was employed by the appellee to oil its machinery in connection with a conveyor or scraper-line used to convey culm to a washery. On September 15, 1905, when he was in his seventeenth year, he sustained the injuries for which he seeks compensation in this action. The accident occurred when he was alongside of the machinery for the purpose of oiling it while it was in motion. A nonsuit was directed on what the court below properly regarded as his contributory negligence in view of his disregard and violation of the Act of June 2 1891, P.L. 176, which provides for the health and safety of persons employed in and...
To continue reading
Request your trial