Court Opinion

ID: 9825991
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 15:09:25.488415+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:45.520320
License: Public Domain

*570Mr. Justice Jones.
I concur in the result. The plaintiff received his injury while attempting to unchoke' the picker machine, at which he was put to work. The proper and safe way to do this was to throw the belt and wait several minutes and allow the breaker of the machine to stop revolving 'before lifting the cap covering the breaker and proceeding to unchoke. Plaintiff was directed to unchoke the machine when necessary. He was inexperienced, and supposed that the machine would stop immediately after the belt was thrown. The foreman admitted that he had failed to instruct him how to unchoke the machine, and did not warn him to wait awhile after throwing the belt to allow the machinery concealed under the cap to stop. This was some evidence to carry to the jury the issue as to whether the master failed in the duty to instruct and warn an inexperienced employee. The question of injury by a fellow-servant was not involved, as the only issue was, whether the representative of the master had failed in the performance of the master’s duty to instruct.
There being some evidence of negligence by the plaintiff, it would not be proper to nonsuit, because of contributory negligence, unless the facts so clearly established the same as to admit of no other inference. This cannot be affirmed of the testimony. The record does not disclose that the danger was so obvious that an inexperienced and uninstructed employee should have waited a little longer before making the attempt to perform the duty assigned to him.