Court Opinion

ID: 8851594
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-26 17:15:04.924913+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:05:31.000103
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM.
We do not And in this case any evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant in the construction and arrangement of its premises and machinery. The employment of a set screw upon a revolving shaft, which caused the injury to the plaintiff, was the common and ordinary way in which such shafts were constructed. The defendant was a mechanic of mature years, and had worked on these premises for some time before the accident occurred. It is also shown that he might have performed the work without danger by another method of reaching it, requiring, perhaps, a little more time. Upon this state of facts, we think the defendant had no reasonable cause to believe that the plaintiff would do the work in such a way as to expose himself to danger, and that it was not guilty of negligence in not warning him. The rule laid down in cases where employes are set at work in positions of unusual and concealed danger is not applicable i:o the present case. In our opinion, there was no evidence of negligence sufficient to support a verdict by the jury for the plaintiff, and the court below committed no error in directing a verdict for the defendant. Judgment affirmed.