Schall v. Cole

• Decision Date: 06 October 1884
• Citation: 107 Pa. 1
• Parties: Schall v. Cole.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

107 Pa. 1

Schall v. Cole.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

October 6, 1884

May 22 1884

1. A Master is bound to furnish his servant with such means and appliances as are suitable for doing the work in which he is employed, and reasonably necessary for the servant's safety. Such means, however, need not be the safest or newest that can be or have been devised. It is sufficient, if they are reasonably safe.

2. A servant assumes all such risks arising from his employment as he knew, or, in the exercise of a reasonable degree of prudence, might have known were naturally and reasonably incident thereto, and he cannot recover against the Master for injuries arising from such patent risks. If, therefore the machinery or appliances, which the Master furnishes him contained obvious defects, of which the servant knew, or as a reasonably prudent man might have known, the servant cannot recover against the Master for injuries resulting therefrom.

3. Where a Master furnishes his servant with defective machinery and an accident occurs, which so suddenly and unexpectedly places the servant in a position of imminent peril as to allow him no sufficient time for reflection, and the servant in endeavoring to save the machinery commits an error of judgment, without which he would not have sustained injury:

Held, That such error of judgment would not charge the servant with contributory negligence or preclude his recovering against the Master, if the latter were in other respects liable for the injury sustained.

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

ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas of York county: Of July Term, 1884, No. 66.

This was an action on the case, by Charles T. Cole against Michael Schall, to recover damages for injuries sustained by the plaintiff through the alleged negligence of the defendant in operating certain defective machinery without sufficient supervision. Plea, not guilty.

On the trial, the following facts appeared: The plaintiff was employed at the time of the accident in operating a planing machine at the works of the defendant. In the room in which he worked, the machinery was driven by a small engine without a boiler, stationed about twenty feet from the machine of which the plaintiff had charge. This engine was run by steam carried through an iron pipe from the boilers of a large engine in the main shop, about eighty-five feet distant. It was connected with plaintiff's planing machine by belting running on an iron pulley wheel. The defendant's foreman in order to increase the velocity of the planing machine, attached, by bolts and screws, to this iron pulley wheel a wooden rim or lining of about an inch in thickness. The testimony was conflicting as to the safety of this addition. The engine was examined twice a day, started in the morning and afternoon, and stopped at noon and in the evening, by the engineer who had charge of the large engine in another building, the men in the small shop starting and stopping it at other times. On the day of the accident the governor-belt on the small engine ran off, increasing the speed of the machinery, whereupon Cole, whose attention was directed to the fact, crawled under a board, went to the place for stopping the planer for the purpose of saving the machine, shifted or threw the belt from the driving-wheel to a loose pulley, thus further increasing the speed of the machinery, after which the pulley running the planing-machine broke and a piece struck plaintiff and broke his leg.

The plaintiff submitted, inter alia, the following points:

2. That it was the primary duty of the defendant to provide good and safe machinery and appliances in his shops for the safety of his employes, and if the jury find that the running this small engine, unattended by any person to control it except the engineer, whose duty it was to also run the main engine situated in another shop eighty-five feet distant, and out of sight of said small engine, and running in connection with said small engine, a cast-iron pulley-wheel perforated with holes drilled through its rim, and enlarged by blocks of wood bolted to it, was not providing such good and safe machinery and appliances as he was bound to provide for the safety of the plaintiff and others in his employ, then he is liable to the plaintiff in this action, and it is the law whether the defendant in fact knew, or was informed of the fact, that said engine was so run as aforesaid, or said pulley was in the condition aforesaid.

Answer. --The law is correctly stated in this point. Whether there was a want of due and reasonable care on the part of defendant, or his authorized agents, under the circumstances of this case, is a question of fact for the jury. (First assignment of error.)

4. If the jury believe from the evidence that, at the time of this accident to the plaintiff and for a considerable length of time before the occurrence of the same, there was in use, and could have been procured, an automatic stop-off, which would shut off the steam from a steam engine in case of the breaking or tearing of the governor-belt of said engine, it was the defendant's duty to know of the existence of said automatic stop-off; and his duty to provide good, safe and proper machinery and appliances for the ordinary safety and protection of the plaintiff, as his employee, required that he, the said defendant, should have had one of said automatic stop-offs on said little engine, and especially was this his duty when he was running said little engine without any person in immmediate charge and control of the same.

Answer. An employer is only bound to provide for the safety of his servant in the course of his employment, to the best of his judgment, information, and belief. It is not his duty to know of and provide every appliance known that adds to the safety and convenience of the use of the machinery provided, he is only held to due and reasonable care in such matters. The question, therefore, is not whet the defendant might have had, but whether it was a want of ordinary care not to have an " automatic stop" on the small engine, under the circumstances of this case. And this is a fact for the jury. (Second assignment of error.)

The defendant submitted the following points:

2. If the plaintiff knew that the small engine without boilers was run by the engineer of the large engine, and without any person attending to said small engine other than the persons in the shop in which plaintiff was working, then the plaintiff is assumed to have undertaken to run the risk of said small engine being conducted in that manner, and the plaintiff is not entitled to recover in this suit.

Answer. The law is correctly stated in this point, if the jury believe from the evidence, that the plaintiff knew that the engine was run as described in the point, and also knew the risk of so running it. (Third assignment of error.)

4. That if the jury believe from the evidence that the defendant, or his foreman, Reuben Hildebrand, acted in good faith in enlarging the pulley which broke and a fragment of which caused the accident, by adding thereto a coating of wood about one inch in thickness; that said coating of wood was applied with bolts and screws in a workmanlike manner, with a view of increasing the velocity of the planing machine and to prevent the strap from slipping, believing, according to the best of his judgment, that there was no danger in so doing, he was not guilty of any negligence by the enlargement of said pulley, and the plaintiff is not entitled to recover in this suit by reason of the accidental breaking of said pulley; especially is that the case if said pulley was increased in strength by the addition of said coating of wood.

Answer. --Affirmed, unless the jury believe that the breaking of the pulley was caused by some negligence in the management of the engine, for which defendant is found to be responsible. (Fourth assignment of error.)

5. That plaintiff proved by his witness, Harry Zinn, that plaintiff by shifting the strap from the pulley of the planing machine to the loose pulley thereby increased the velocity of the pulley above, which had been coated with wood; that by said act said plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, if the plaintiff's negligence contributed in any degree to the furthering of the injury complained of; that the plaintiff and his said witness, Zinn, both testified that if plaintiff had remained where he was feeding the planing machine with boards, and had not crossed over underneath the board on the planing machine at the time to the other side...