Case Name: Wholeben, Appellant, v. Warren Mica Lubricant Company
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1902-06-04
Citations: 203 Pa. 234
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 5
Parties: Wholeben, Appellant, v. Warren Mica Lubricant Company.
Judges: Before McCollum, C. J., Mitchell, Brown, Mestrezat and Potter, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 203
Pages: 234–235

Head Matter:
Wholeben, Appellant, v. Warren Mica Lubricant Company.
Negligence — Master and servant — Defective machinery— Conflict of evidence — Question for jury.
In an action by an employee against his employer to recover damages for injuries sustained by plaintiff while he was working at a machine, the plaintiff alleged that the machinery was not properly secured, and that while attempting, under specific instructions, to remove a belt from a main shaft, the countershaft gave way, and his hand was drawn in between the belt and pulley and injured. The defendant company denied giving any directions to throw off the belt by hand, and the evidence on its part tended’ to show that the countershaft was secured in the usual way, and that a mechanical clutch was provided for stopping part of the machinery, to permit of changing the belt in safety. Held, that a verdict and judgment for defendant should be sustained.
Argued May 7, 1902.
Appeal, No. 5, Jan. T., 1902, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Warren Co., Sept. T., 1899, No. 55, on verdict for plaintiff in case of John Wholeben v. Warren Mica Lubricant Company.
Before McCollum, C. J., Mitchell, Brown, Mestrezat and Potter, JJ.
Affirmed.
Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Lindsey, P. J.
At the trial it appeared that on March 18, 1899, plaintiff was injured while at work in defendant’s establishment at certain machinery, which was used to bolt lime. Plaintiff alleged that he was. instructed by the defendant’s superintendent to remove a belt from a main shaft, and that while doing so the countershaft gave way, and his hand was injured. Plaintiff’s story was denied by the defendant, and its evidence tended to show that the countershaft was secured in the usual way, and that proper safety appliances had been provided.
The court submitted the case to the jury.
Verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appealed.
Errors assigned were various instructions.
George II. Higgins, with him Allen Son, for appellant.
D. 1. Ball and W. W. Wilbur, for appellee, were not heard.
June 4, 1902:

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
This case turned entirely upon disputed questions of fact. The plaintiff alleged that the machinery was not properly secured, and that while attempting, under specific instructions, to remove a belt from a main shaft, the countershaft gave way, and his hand was drawn in between the belt and pulley and injured.
The defendant compaiw denied giving any directions to throw off the belt by hand, and the evidence on its part tended to show that the countershaft was secured in the usual way, and that a mechanical clutch was provided for stopping part of the machinery, to permit of changing the belt in safety.
These controverted questions were submitted to the jury, and the verdict was in favor of the defendant. The charge of the court below was clear and ample, and presented every element of the plaintiff's claim upon which he could properly rely. The assignments of error are overruled, and the judgment is affirmed.