
    Zeilmann, Appellant, v. McCullough.
    
      Negligence — Master and servant — Driver of wagon — Log truck.
    
    In an action by a driver of wagon against his employer to recover damages for personal injuries sustained while the plaintiff was driving a log truck on which were loaded iron columns, a nonsuit is properly entered where it appears that the plaintiff was an experienced driver, had driven the log truck three or four times before, and that whatever danger there was in its use, was as apparent to him as to his employer.
    Argued Jan. 9, 1906.
    Appeal, No. 265, Jan. T., 1905, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., June T., 1903, No. 4364, refusing to take off nonsuit in case of John Gr. Zeilmann v. John McCullough.
    Before Mitchell, C. J., Fell, Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin and Stewart, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before McMichael, J.
    
      At the trial it appeared that on April 22, 1903, plaintiff was engaged in hauling iron columns on a log truck. He was an experienced driver and had driven the log truck three or four times before. He claimed that a pin on the rear end of the log truck came out, that the columns were thrown to the ground, and that he was knocked from his position and injured. The evidence tended to show that the plaintiff knew as much of the condition of the truck as the defendant did.
    The court entered a compulsory nonsuit which it subsequently refused to take off.
    
      Error assigned was refusal to take off nonsuit.
    
      Henry Birok, for appellant.
    
      Francis Shunk Brown, with him Alex. Simpson, Jr., and B. W. Archbald, Jr., for appellee.
    February 12, 1906:
   Per Curiam,

The plaintiff was a driver of some years’ experience, and had driven this particular log truck, according to his own testimony, “ three times, anyhow — three or four times before I met with this accident. ... I only took one six-ton column that morning. . . . How many days before that time ? Well, it was about two days, anyhow.”

Whatever of danger there was in such use of the truck was as apparent to plaintiff as to anyone else, and he took the risk.

Judgment affirmed.  