218 Pa. 214 | Pa. | 1907
Opinion by
It appeared from the plaintiff’s testimony that he had been employed by the defendant as a cable splicer or electric plumber. He was taken from this work, which was done mainly in underground conduits, and directed to assist in the removal of an iron pole which had rusted near the base and become unfit for use. This was work with which he was not familiar. The pole had been inspected and condemned as unsafe, but of this fact he had no knowledge; the defects were not apparent nor discernible except by inspection ; he supposed the pole was safe as it appeared to be, and from information received from the foreman believed that it was to be replaced by one of a different kind. While he was at the top of the pole, assisting in the removal of a mast-arm, the pole broke a few inches from the ground because it was too weak to sustain the extra iveight.
This testimony, although flatly contradicted, made out a case that entitled the plaintiff to go to the jury, since it tended to show that there was a special risk in the work which was not patent, and was not known to him but was known to bis employer. Of this he should have been warned. The error at the trial which calls for a reversal of the judgment was in the answer to the plaintiff’s fourth point: “ If you find that the work in which the said plaintiff was engaged at the time of the accident was not the usual and customary work which he had been engaged by the defendant company to. perform, and that the plaintiff was inexperienced in that
The first assignment of error is sustained, and the judgment is reversed with a venire facias de novo.
