The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1902-04-26
AN IMPORTANT OPINION,
It Deals with the Relations Between
Breaker Boy and His En-
ployer-Matter at Issue.

ployer-Matter at Issue.
An opinion of general interest was
handed down by Judge w. ID. Porter,
of the superior court, in Pittsburg, Mon-
day. 1t deals mainly with the relations
between Il breaker boy and his en-
ployer The story of the cause Of ac-
ton Is told in the introduction of the
opinion, which is printed below in full:
Dennis Brislin, guardian of James Noonan, VS..
tie Kingston Coal company.
The plaintiff, boy II years Of age, had been
employed about the works of the defendant COM
pany for almost two years prior to receiving the
injuries out of which this arose. lie had
first worked at picking slate, which employment
did not bring him in contact with the machinery
by which he was subsequently injured. About
two months prior to the accident the plaintiff
was put to work at cleaning the dust chutes but
in that occupation there nothing to familiar
ize him with the operation OF the machinery.
About Il month before the accident the plaintiff
was directed to discharge the duty OF keeping the
coal moving in q certain device called tele-
graph, which consisted of two chutes leading
from a point below the revolving screen in a
hopper, one to each side of the lower part OF the
building. These two chutes declined from Il COM
mon apex, called the knucklc, which was directly
below the center of the revolving screen and
about eight inches distant thcrefrom
The coal, after passing through the revolving
screen, would sometimes clog upon the knuckle
and the upper part Of the chues, the result Of
which was that all the coal passing through the
screen would pass down one of the clutcs, in.
stead of supplying both sides of the works below.
10 obviate this, 1t was necessary for the plain.
tiff, by the use of 4 sctaper or in some other
manner to start moving the coal which had so
lodged in the device used for carrying it to the
lower screens. The plaintiff, while starting the
coal which had cloggcd at the knuckle and in the
upper part of the chute, had his foot caught be.
tween the coal and the revolving screen, which
drew him through the narrow opening inflict-
ing serious injuries There was evidence which
would have justified a finding that there was dan.
ger of doing the work in the manner in which
the plaintiff was discharging the duty. The
plaintiff prior to being put at this particular
work. had been without experience Us to the man
ner in which it ought TO be done, and had no
notice of the danger involved, save that which
was apparent from the character of the work.
Ii the testimony OF the plaintiff was to be be-
liovcd, lie had never the work done until lie
himself was put to do it, lie testified that lie
was told by the foreman in charge of the breaker
"to go up there and clean out them bottom
c;ltcs that they were going to run the other
discharge that duty for about a month in pre-
cscy the same manner in, which he was doing
it ut the time he was hurt.
The chutcs in question were called the bottom
chutes, because they started from the bottom OF
the hopper and under the screen. He testified
that he did this work in addition to keeping the
dust chutcs clean, the latter being above tile
platform, and that he would go down under the
screen to do the work every time when the coal
was blocked; that lie used to go down ten or
twelve times day. lie testified absolutely that
he was not in any manner instructed as to how
the work was to be done or cautioned as to any
dangers to be avoided
The defendant called witnesses who testified
that the proper and safe way in which to do the
work was to use scrapcr and reach down from
platform, which was about seven feet above the
point where the coal lodged, and that to go down
under the screen to start the coal was dangerous.
A number OF witnesses were called who testified
that the plaintiff had been instructed as to tho
manner in which to do the work, and that he had
been warned of the danger of going down below
the screen to start the coal moving.
These witnesses further testified that the coal
which lodged at the kmcklc and in the extreme
upper part of the clmtes could not be reached
from the platform, and that the proper way to
clear out that part Of the device was to wait I'M.
til the machinery stopped and remove The coal
when the screen was still. Tie youth and mex
pcrcncc of the plaintiff imposed upon the defend
ant the duty of instructing him as to the dangers
ncr in which to avoid such dangers.
II, while the machinery was in motion, it was
safe to clean only a part OF the chucs the in
experience OF the plaintiff entitled him to
warning as to how far lie was to carry his opera
tions. That duty would not he met by giving
him general direction to keep the chutes clear
of coal without enlghtcning his ignorance by
telling him the part OF the chutes which was to
be kent clear and the manner in which it was
to be ACCOMPLISHED. 7
When the work which an employe is set to DO
may be done in different ways, one OF which is
dangerous but which experience has taught may
safely be done in another manner, then the mex
perenccd employe is entitled to instruction rs to
the way in which it ought TO be done; Shccram
VS.. Trexler sayc and Lumber company, 13 Pa,
Superior Ct, 2lO: Lebbcring VS.. Struthcrs, Wells
& Company, 157 Pa, 3l2; Kilkeary y:s. Thackery,
lGj Pa, 5Si; Smith vs.. Oil City Tube company,
lsS Pa, 4sj; Caigll vs.. the Philadelphia Towel
Supply and Laundry company, 1s5 Pa, 2Go;
Whitaker VS.. Campbell, 1SI Pa, 1l3.
The deondqnt contended that the character of
the work was such as to require the instruction
Of an inexperienced employe, and called num-
ber of witnesses to prove that such instruction
had been given. This raised question of fact
upon which the evidence was directly contradic'
tory, and the determination of that question was
for the jury Rohler W., Pennsylvania Railroad
company, 135 Pa, 3iG; Baker vs.. Irish, liz Pa,
52S
When the testimony of the witnesses is ir.
reconciliblc as to the material facts, the doc
trine recognized in Lonzer vs Lehgh Valley
Railroad company, 10G, Pa, GlO, has no applca.
ton. The learned judge of the court below SUBJ
mitted this disputed question OF fact to the Jury,
with instructions of which the defendant has no
Just ground ior complaint. The jury found that
the plaintiff had not been instructed as to the
manner in which to do his work or the danger
which it involved.
A careful review of the testimony has failed
to convince us that the danger involved in the
employment was so visible and immediate, in the
absence OF instruction, the plaintiff must be pre-
stmed to have been guilty OF contlbutory negli-
gcnce in the manner in which he did the work.
While it must be conceded that II was some
what dangerous to remove the coal from directly
under the screen while the latter was in motion,
it can hardly be said, as matter OF law, to have
been imminently dangerous that no prudent
person would do So because the plaintiff testi-
l.. "A,