How has the court interpreted the law in the context of P.TO.O. protecting an employee’s safety shield?

And, with reference to McNabb v. Glenn (1981), 1981 CanLII 2116 (SK QB), 11 Sask. R. 235: “In McNabb v. Glenn, the plaintiff employee was injured when his left sleeve became entangled in the P.T.O. of an auger. The plaintiff, previously to the accident, was cautioned about wearing loose clothing in proximity to the P.T.O. and in using a crowbar when applying pressure to the I-beam. The court found that the defendant was negligent as he knew that the plaintiff was working close to the P.T.O. when applying pressure to the beam and the P.T.O. did not have a shield. The court stated that even if the plaintiff had contributed to his injuries by his conduct, the duty upon the defendant was an overriding or ultimate duty which extended to protecting the plaintiff against his own foreseeable carelessness from a reasonably foreseeable danger.”