O'Keefe v. Thorn

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
O'Keefe v. Thorn, 2 Monag. 73 (Pa. 1889)
16 A. 737; 1889 Pa. LEXIS 1377

O'Keefe v. Thorn

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

The court below entered a non-suit in this case, which is assigned as error. The plaintiff is a boy between fourteen and fifteen years of age; and obtained a situation with the defendant, who was proprietor of a' factory where tin shingles are made. These are pieces of tin stamped by machinery, and used for roofing purposes. The business at which the plaintiff was put, was to shove the tin plates under the stamping-machine. He was injured, the second day of his employment, by having his left hand caught under the stamping-machine, by which he lost two of his fingers. All machinery is dangerous, if not properly used. There was no danger in this particular machine that was not as obvious to a boy of fourteen as to an adult. He could see that, if he placed his hand under the stamp, it would be crushed. If boys are not allowed to use machinery until they have become accustomed to its use, it would be difficult for them to learn any useful trade or occupation by which to earn a livelihood.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Cited By
4 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries caused by the alleged negligence of the defendant, it appeared that the plaintiff, a boy between fourteen and fifteen years of age, was employed by the defendant, to operate a machine for stamping tin shingles. The machine was worked by pressing the foot upon a treadle, which caused a heavy weight, or hammer, to come down with force upon the tin, which was placed beneath it by the operator with his right hand. The plaintiff testified that he had never worked on a machine before ; that, on the first day of his employment,' the defendant’s foreman took him to a machine, and put in five or six pieces of tin to stamp them ; that he himself then put three or four pieces in, and after that the foreman left him. On the second day of his employment, the plaintiff, while adjusting a piece of tin under the hammer with his left hand, leaned over from the bench on which he was sitting, to arrange the tin, causing the bench, which was “loose and kind of shaky,” to fall, and his foot slipped on the greasy floor and caught the treadle, bringing down the hammer on his hand. The plaintiff, on cross-examination, testified that he had “no occasion to use the left hand.” The defendant, claiming that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, and that he had assumed the risk of his employment, asked the court to enter a compulsory non-suit, which was done. Held, not to be error.