Case Name: Jules Albert Grimont, by His Next Friend, Charles Grimont, Plff. in Err., v. John Hartman
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1886-02-08
Citations: 1 Sadler 434
Docket Number: 
Parties: Jules Albert Grimont, by His Next Friend, Charles Grimont, Plff. in Err., v. John Hartman.
Judges: 
Reporter: Cases in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania; being those cases not designated to be reportedÉ
Volume: 1
Pages: 434–435

Head Matter:
Jules Albert Grimont, by His Next Friend, Charles Grimont, Plff. in Err., v. John Hartman.
The burden is upon an injured employee to show that the machinery used was defectively constructed or out of repair.
(Decided February 8, 1886.)
Error to the Common Pleas, No. 3, of Philadelphia County to review a judgment for defendant in an action for damages for personal injuries.
Oited in Fick v. Jackson, 3 Pa. Super. Ct. 37S, 386, 39 W. N. C. 534.
Note. — The burden of showing that the machinery used, which caused injury to an employee, was negligently constructed, or unsuitable for the pur pose, is upon him, and cannot be presumed. Ford v. Anderson, 139 Pa. 261, 21 Atl. 18; Reese v. Clark, 146 Pa. 465, 23 Atl. 246; Ash v.-Verlenden Bros. 154 Pa. 246, 26 Atl. 374; Payne v. Reese, 100 Pa. 301.
Affirmed.
Stanislaus Bemalc, D. M. M. Collins, and William W. Wilt-bank for plaintiff in error.
Benjamin Daniels and David W. Sellers for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Per Curiam:
All the evidence was insufficient to justify a submission of this case to the jury. It fails to show the kind of machinery used, or that it was defectively constructed, or out of repair. In the absence of any proof to the contrary, the presumption is that it was suitable for the purpose for which it was used, and with reasonable care of an employee, could be operated without danger. This is all the law imposes on an employer. He does not guarantee absolute safety.
Judgment affirmed.