Case Name: MARY SCHAUMBERGER, ADMINISTRATRIX OF JACOB SCHAUMBERGER, v. THE SOMERSET CHEMICAL COMPANY
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1903-02-24
Citations: 69 N.J.L. 234
Docket Number: 
Parties: MARY SCHAUMBERGER, ADMINISTRATRIX OF JACOB SCHAUMBERGER, v. THE SOMERSET CHEMICAL COMPANY.
Judges: Before Gummere, Oi-iiee Justice, and JusticesVAN Syckel, Fort and Pitney.
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 69
Pages: 234–234

Head Matter:
MARY SCHAUMBERGER, ADMINISTRATRIX OF JACOB SCHAUMBERGER, v. THE SOMERSET CHEMICAL COMPANY.
Argued November 6, 1902
Decided February 24, 1903.
The burden is on the part of the servant to establish the negligence of the master which led to the injury.
On rule to show cause.
Before Gummere, Oi-iiee Justice, and JusticesVAN Syckel, Fort and Pitney.
For the plaintiff, Lewis A. Allen and Michael Dunn.
For the defendant, Colie & Buffield.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The plaintiff's intestate was killed while repairing a belt.
The plaintiff alleges that, by reason of a defect in a pulley, the clothes of the decedent were caught and he was drawn into the machinery and killed.
There was but little evidence to show how the accident happened.
The burden is on the plaintiff to establish negligence of the defendant which led to the injury.
The deceased was engaged in an employment in which there ivas obvious danger, requiring much care, on his part, to avoid injury.
We think there is a want of evidence to show negligence on the part of the defendant, and that, from the few facts that appear in the testimony, it is more reasonable to conclude that the deceased failed to take proper care for his own safety.
The rule to show cause should be made absolute.