Mackin v. Alaska Refrigerator Co.

• Decision Date: 18 May 1894
• Citation: 100 Mich. 276,58 N.W. 999
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: MACKIN v. ALASKA REFRIGERATOR CO.

58 N.W. 999

100 Mich. 276

MACKIN v. ALASKA REFRIGERATOR CO.

Supreme Court of Michigan

May 18, 1894

Error to circuit court, Muskegon county; Albert Dickerman, Judge.

Action by Thomas Mackin, by John P. Northy, his next friend, against the Alaska Refrigerator Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.

Smith Nims, Hoyt & Erwin, for appellant.

Turner Turner & Turner (Brown & Lovelace, of counsel), for appellee.

HOOKER J.

The plaintiff, a young man between 18 and 19 years of age recovered a judgment for $5,000 for the loss of a hand which was mutilated by defendant's buzz planer. The plaintiff sought work from defendant's foreman, and was at first denied, but, in view of his necessities, he was given work at removing small pieces of wood from the planer after the operator of the machine had dressed them on the machine. These sticks were piled up by the operator, in lots of 10, upon the machine, after they had been planed. The plaintiff describes the machine as a table with a slot about two inches or more wide extending across it, in which slot was a cylinder, with knives upon it, which cylinder, with its knives, extended from a sixteenth to a half inch above the table, at the will of the operator. The plaintiff's version of the accident is that no one instructed him how to do his work, and that he had worked for some hours, when he was injured in taking away the last lot of pieces that were to be planed at that time. The negligence alleged in the declaration consisted in (1) not having the machine covered; (2) not giving the plaintiff proper instruction.

The evidence conclusively showed that it was not usual or feasible to put a cover or screen over such planers, and, upon the hearing in this court, counsel for the plaintiff disavowed any claim based upon the insufficiency of the machine. The judge submitted the question to the jury, however, and this was error. It was urged that this question is not raised by counsel for the defendant, but the brief refutes the claim.

Upon the second ground alleged the evidence is conflicting upon the subject of instruction, hence the inquiry must be whether the failure to give instruction was negligent. Plaintiff testified that he had worked in a pulp mill, and that he had been apprenticed to a plumber, for whom he had worked for some time, so that he had some knowledge of mechanics, if not machinery. The machine is one whose...