#### Greiser, Appellant, *v.*Eddystone Manufacturing Company.

*Negligence*— Master *and servant*— Notification *of foreman*— Obvious *danger*— Nonsuit.

A nonsuit is properly entered in a suit for damages for personal injuries brought by a workman who was injured by being caught in the rollers of a cloth drying machine at which he had worked for a year, where there was no defect in the machine and no danger except the obvious one of having his hand caught by the cylinders if he was careless in handling the cloth.

Argued Feb. 7, 1910.

Appeal, No. 328,

Jan. T., 1909, by-plaintiff, from order of C. P. Delaware Co., June T., 1908, No. 243, refusing to take off nonsuit in case of Jacob Greiser v. The Eddystone Manufacturing Company.

Before Fell, C. J., Brown, Potter, Elkin and Moschziskbr, JJ.

Affirmed.

Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries to a workman whose hand was caught between the rollers of a drying machine. Before Johnson, P. J.

The facts appear in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

The court entered a compulsory nonsuit which it subsequently refused to take off.

*Error assigned*was in refusing to take off nonsuit.

*William C. Alexander,*for appellant.

— Where the servant, in obedience to the requirement of the master incurs the risk of machinery, which though dangerous, is not so much as to threaten immediate injury, or where it is reasonably probable it may be safely used by extraordinary caution or skill, the master is liable for a resulting accident: Patterson v. Pittsburg & Connellsville R. R. Co., 76 Pa. 389; Schiglizzo v. Dunn, 211 Pa. 253; Rummell v. Dilworth, 111 Pa. 343; Gerding v. Steel Co., 220 Pa. 229.

*Joseph T. Bunting,*for appellee.

— There being no defect charged against tlie drying machine, and the plaintiff having *376had ample experience in taking off these double edges at the place where he was finally hurt, and the danger incident to taking them off in front of the rapidly revolving heated rolls being apparent, open and obvious, he has no right of recovery against the master: Higgins v. Fanning, 195 Pa. 599.

Per Curiam,

March 7,1910:

The plaintiff had worked a year or more at a machine for drying cloth in the defendant’s mill. The cloth was washed in a long tub by passing it between rollers, and was then drawn by a roller to the drying'machine, where it passed between heated cylinders that revolved rapidly. It was the plaintiff’s duty to see that the cloth, after it passed between the cylinders, was wound on spools. The edges of the cloth would frequently become doubled over, and he was then required to remove the folds with his hands. On the day of the accident there were an unusual number of folds, or folds of an unusual size, in the cloth when it came from the tub. The plaintiff told the foreman in charge that there must be something wrong with the roller in the tub, and was told by him to do the best he could, that it would be fixed, and that there would be no danger if he took the folds out at the back of the machine, the place where he usually took them out and where he was working when injured. There was no defect in the machine at which the plaintiff was working, and there was no danger except the obvious one of having his hand caught by the cylinders if he was careless in handling the cloth.

The judgment is affirmed.