Knisley v. Pratt

Decision Date18 February 1896
PartiesKNISLEY v. PRATT et al.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from supreme court, general term, Fifth department.

Action by Sarah Knisley against Pascal P. Pratt and others. From a judgment of the general term (26 N. Y. Supp. 1010) granting plaintiff a new trial, defendants appeal. Reversed.

Vann, J., dissenting. 26 N. Y. Supp. 1010 , reversed.

John S. Milburn, for appellants.

H. C. Day, for respondent.

BARTLETT, J.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages for loss of her left arm, caused by the alleged negligence of the defendants, who were the proprietors of a hardware factory, where plaintiff was employed at the time of the accident in operating what is known as a ‘punching machine.’ A person using this machine is seated at a bench, the top of which is about 32 inches from the floor and covered with plank about 5 inches in thickness. The machine is about 22 inches wide and 4 feet high, with an iron bed plate bolted to the bench. Two iron posts 4 feet high, connected at the top by an iron crosspiece, make a substantial frame for the machine. Near the top is a shaft, passing through the posts, on one end of which is a drum and belt connecting with shafting; on the other end are a small cogwheel, about seven inches in diameter, running close to the frame, and outside of it, and a large fly wheel. Immediately under this shaft is another shaft, having a cogwheel about two feet in diameter, which is operated from the cogwheel on the upper shaft. In the center of the lower shaft is an iron rod, to which is attached a punch, arranged on an eccentric so that the revolution of the shaft causes the punch to lift and lower 60 times per minute. There was no shifter to throw off the belt so as to stop the machine, and the cogwheels were unguarded. The plaintiff, the machine being in motion, was engaged in cleaning it, which consisted in rubbing the dirt and oil off the punch and uprights with a piece of waste, held in her left hand; and in some way her hand was caught between the cogwheels, causing such injuries to it and the arm as to necessitate amputation of the latter near the shoulder. Plaintiff, being of full age, entered the employ of defendants in May or June, 1890, and the accident happened September 24, 1891. She testified that she worked, off and on, about three months on these punching machines prior to the accident, sometimes an hour, sometimes half a day, at a time, as required; that up to the time of the accident she had worked twelve different times, on different days, upon one of the punching machines, and had cleaned it about seven or eight times. It is insisted, on behalf of the plaintiff that, even if, under the admitted facts, she would by the rules of the common law be deemed to have assumed, not only the ordinary, but the obvious, risks of the business, yet the provisions of the statute commonly known as the ‘Factory Act would enable her to recover. Laws 1890, p. 753, c. 398, amending Laws 1886, c. 409, entitled, ‘An act to regulate the employment of women and children in manufacturing establishments and to provide for inspectors to enforce the same.’ The complaint makes no reference to the statute, but charges the defendants in the usual way with neglect to provide safe and suitable machinery and a safe and proper place in which to work. The statute was referred to at the trial in the general term, and on the argument before this court. We shall therefore consider this case as presenting the question whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover by reason of this statute, even if, under the principles of the common law, as applied to the facts, she had assumed the obvious risks of the employment.

The statute (Laws 1890, p. 756, c. 398, § 12) provides that it shall be the duty of the owner of any manufacturing establishment to furnish, in the discretion of the factory inspector, belt shifters, for the purpose of throwing on or off belts or pulleys. It also provides absolutely that cogs shall be properly guarded. The belt shifter is out of this case, as no effort was made to prove that the inspector had ordered it to be placed on the machine which injured the plaintiff, and that the owner had failed to obey. It is admitted that the cogwheels were unguarded on this machine. The plaintiff was injured by reason of that condition of the cogwheels, and it appears that a piece of sheet iron, put in between the upright and the gear wheels, would have protected the hand of the operative while cleaning the machine when in motion. It was not unlawful to permit plaintiff to clean the machine when in motion, as the statute provides that ‘no female, under the age of 21 years, * * * shall be allowed to clean machinery when in motion. Laws 1890, p. 756, c. 398, § 12. The plaintiff was over 21 years of age. The defendants are chargeable, therefore, with one omission only under the statute, viz. a failure to properly guard the cogwheels of the punching machine. In order to sustain the judgment in favor of plaintiff, it is necessary to hold that, where the statute imposes a duty upon the employer the performance of which will afford greater protection to the employé, it is not possible for the latter to waive the protection of the statute, under the commonlaw doctrine of obvious risks. We regard this as a new and startling doctrine, calculated to establish a measure of liability unknown to the common law, and which is contrary to the decisions of Massachusetts and England under similar statutes. It should be remarked at the outset that the factory act in this state does not, in terms, give a cause of action to one suffering an injury by reason of the failure of the employer to discharge his duty thereunder. An action for such injury is the ordinary commonlaw action for negligence, and subject to the rules of the common law. Caswell v. Worth, 5 El. & Bl. 855. The principle contended for seems to rest, if it can be maintained at all, upon a question of public policy. The factory act, it is said, is passed to regulate the employment of women and children, and imposes upon the employer certain duties, and subjects him to specified penalties in case of default; that a sound public policy requires the rigid enforcement of this act, and it would contravene that policy to permit an employé, by implied contract or promise, to waive the protection of the statute. We think this proposition is essentially unsound, and proceeds upon theories that cannot be maintained. It is difficult to perceive any difference in the quality and character of a cause of action,-whether it has its origin in the ancient principles of the common law, in the formulated rules of modern decisions, or in the declared will of the legislature. Public policy in each case requires its...

To continue reading

Request your trial
65 cases
  • St. Louis Cordage Co. v. Miller
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • November 12, 1903
    ... ... 631, ... 635, 30 N.E. 236; Higgins Carpet Co. v. O'Keefe, ... 51 U.S.App. 74, 80, 79 F. 900, 902, 25 C.C.A. 220, 222; ... Knisley v. Pratt, 148 N.Y. 372, 42 N.E. 986, 32 ... L.R.A. 367; Graves v. Brewer, 4 A.D. 327, 38 ... N.Y.Supp. 566 ... The ... question ... ...
  • Obermeyer v. Logeman Chair Manufacturing Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • July 9, 1906
    ...135 U.S. 554; Choctaw & Oklahoma v. McDade, 191 U.S. 64; Miller v. Cordage Co., 126 F. 195; Higgins v. Carpet Co., 79 F. 900; Kneisley v. Pratt, 148 N.Y. 372; Sullivan Mfg. Co., 113 Mass. 396; Goodrich v. Washington Mills, 160 Mass. 234; O'Malloy v. Boston Gas, 158 Mass. 135. (2) The court ......
  • Hall v. West & Slade Mill Co.
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • August 2, 1905
    ... ... leading English cases on the question. The Court of Appeals ... of New York, in Knisley v. Pratt, 148 N.Y. 379, 42 ... N.E. 987, 32 L. R. A. 367, uses the following language: ... 'In order to sustain the judgment in favor of ... ...
  • Connolly v. St. Joseph Press Printing Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • January 13, 1902
    ... ... 199; Porter v. Railroad, ... 71 Mo. 77. The same rule seems to have been universally ... applied by the courts of other States. Knisley v ... Pratt, 148 N.Y. 372; Williams v. Railroad, 116 ... N.Y. 628; Shaw, Adm'x, v. Sheldon, 103 N.Y. 669; ... Powers v. Railroad, 98 N.Y ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT