Vant v. Roelofs
| Decision Date | 22 April 1907 |
| Docket Number | 221 |
| Citation | 66 A. 749,217 Pa. 535 |
| Parties | Vant v. Roelofs, Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued January 10, 1907
Appeal, No. 221, Jan. T., 1906, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. No. 3, Phila. Co., March Term, 1904, No. 662, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Harry Vant v. Henry H Roelofs, trading as Henry H. Roelofs & Company. Reversed.
Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before McMICHAEL J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Verdict for plaintiff for $5,000, upon which judgment was entered for $4,000, all above that amount having been remitted.
Error assigned was in refusing binding instructions for defendant.
Judgment reversed, and is here entered for defendant.
John H. Fow, with him F. Carroll Fow, for appellant. -- The evidence failed to sustain a finding that Lauber was a vice principal: McCool v. Lucas Coal Co., 150 Pa. 638; Casey v. Paving Co., 198 Pa. 348; New York, etc., R.R. Co. v. Bell, 112 Pa. 400; Lewis v. Seifert, 116 Pa. 628; Ross v. Walker, 139 Pa. 42; Prescott v. Engine Co., 176 Pa. 459.
When anyone who has been instructed, and has had an opportunity to examine and inspect the place of his labor and its surroundings, undertakes to do the work, he assumes the risk incident to such work: Rooney v. Carson, 161 Pa. 26; Danisch v. Amer, 214 Pa. 105; Derr v. R.R. Co., 158 Pa. 365; Moore v. R.R. Co., 167 Pa. 495; Nye v. R.R. Co., 178 Pa. 134.
Henry A. Craig, with him Augustus Trask Ashton, for appellee. -- There was a duty to instruct plaintiff so as to enable him to perform the work he was called upon to do with reasonable safety: Sweigert v. Klingensmith, 210 Pa. 565; Stapleton v. Traction Co., 5 Pa. Superior Ct. 253; Wagner v. Jayne Chemical Co., 147 Pa. 475.
The duty cannot be delegated: Smith v. Coal & Iron Co., 186 Pa. 28; Dougherty v. Dobson, 214 Pa. 252.
Before MITCHELL, C.J., FELL, BROWN, MESTREZAT, POTTER, ELKIN and STEWART, JJ.
The statement of claim in this case charges two acts of negligence; first, that the appellee was not properly instructed in the use and operation of the machine upon which he was injured; and, second, that the defendant was negligent in furnishing a machine which was so dangerous and defective as to render it unsafe. The evidence failed to support the allegation that the machine was defective and, therefore, unsafe, and we do not understand that this branch of the case was insisted upon in the court below or that it is pressed here. We may disregard this allegation in the further consideration of the question involved here.
We then come to the question whether the appellant was negligent in failing to give proper instructions to the appellee before placing him at work on the machine. The appellee relies wholly on the allegation that Mr. Lauber was a vice principal, and that he instructed him to take his fingers and stretch out the wrinkles when the machine was running, and asserts in following these instructions the revolving cone carried his hand against the disk and caused the injuries about which complaint is made. The appellee admits, however, that when Lauber instructed him how to take the wrinkles out, he first stopped the machine, put his hand on the felt and smoothed out the wrinkles before the machine was again set in motion. If appellee had done the same thing he would not have been injured. It is contended, however that Lauber told appellee that he could smooth the wrinkles out while the machine was revolving, but it was obvious to anyone with reasonable intelligence that if he put his hand upon a revolving cone and permitted it to remain there, it would be drawn against the disk. It did not require instructions from anyone to inform an employee about a danger that was so perfectly obvious to anyone with eyes to see and hands to feel. The machine was not complicated and had no hidden or latent dangers about which it was the duty of the employer to instruct an employee. The appellee was a young man about twenty years of age, had worked as an apprentice in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial