Wilkinson v. H. W. Johns Manufacturing Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April 1, 1901

Wilkinson v. H. W. Johns Manufacturing Co., 198 Pa. 634 (Pa. 1901)

48 A. 810; 1901 Pa. LEXIS 852

Brown, Fell, McCollum, Mesteezat, Pee, Potter

Opinion of the Court

Pee, Curiam,

We think there was no error committed by the learned court below in entering a compulsory nonsuit, or in refusing to take it off. The plaintiff was an employee of the defendant company and at the time he received the injury of which he complains he was, with other laborers, engaged in the performance of work to which he and they were assigned. He was familiar with the duties which devolved upon him and with the appliances used in the performance of the work in which he was engaged. He did not complain of his employment, or of defective *636appliances, at any time during the seven months in which he was in the service of the defendant company. With full knowledge of the nature of his employment and of the appliances used therein, he must be held to have assumed the risk involved in it. It is sufficient to refer herein to Mansfield Coal & Coke Co. v. McEnery, 91 Pa. 185, and to New York, Lake Erie & Western Railroad Co. v. Lyons, 119 Pa. 324, as furnishing a satisfactory answer to the appellant’s contention. Assignment dismissed.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: Wilkinson v. H. W. Johns Manufacturing Company
Cited By: 1 case
Status: Published
Syllabus: Negligence—Master and servant—Loading wagons—Risk of employment. In an action by an employee against his employer to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in loading a wagon, a compulsory nonsuit is properly entered where the evidence showed that the plaintiff had been engaged in assisting in loading wagons with bags of cement for about seven months; that in the process of loading a gang plank was used, one end of which rested against the end of a cleat on the floor, and the other on the side of the wagon, and over this the laborers would walk; that when the wagon was so far from the door that the gang plank was short a small board would be put against the cleat and the gang plank rested against that; that prior to plaintiff’s employment the gang plank had hooks on one end; that at the time of the accident plaintiff was walking over the plank when it slipped and he was injured; and that plaintiff had never during the course of his employment complained of the gang plank as defective.