Scharenbroich v. St. Cloud Fiber-Ware Co.

Decision Date16 November 1894
Docket Number8812
Citation60 N.W. 1093,59 Minn. 116
PartiesHenry Scharenbroich v. St. Cloud Fiber-Ware Co
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court

Argued by appellant, submitted on brief by respondent October 30 1894

Petition for reargument denied Dec. 4, 1894.

Appeal by defendant, St. Cloud Fiber-Ware Company, a corporation from an order of the District Court of Stearns County, L. L Baxter, J., made March 7, 1894, denying its motion for a new trial, if plaintiff consent to reduce his verdict from $ 5,640 to $ 3,140.

On June 13, 1893, plaintiff Henry Scharenbroich was a servant of defendant at work as a common laborer in its pulp and paper mill at St. Cloud. The mill was operated by water power. He was twenty two years old and had worked in the mill basement two seasons preparing wood for pulp. It was his business also to turn on and shut off the water to start or stop the machinery. In turning on the water that day he slipped and his left foot was caught and injured in the manner described in the opinion. He brought this action to recover damages claiming the defendant was negligent in not boxing over the pinion and in neglecting to warn him of the danger. Defendant answered claiming that whatever danger there was in letting on or shutting off the water was obvious and that plaintiff assumed the risk by entering into and continuing in the employment without complaint and that the injury he received was the result of his own negligence and want of care in hoisting the gate and turning on the water. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff and assessed his damages at $ 5,640. Defendant on notice moved the court February 15, 1894, for a new trial. The court granted the motion unless plaintiff should within twenty days thereafter stipulate to reduce the verdict to $ 3,140, but denying a new trial if he should. Plaintiff so stipulated, and defendant appeals from the order.

Order reversed.

G. W. Stewart, for appellant.

One entering into or continuing in the employment of another with knowledge of the risks which attend that employment and the conditions which surround it, dispenses with those safeguards which ordinarily it would have been the master's duty to have furnished. Consent beforehand exempts the master from the charge of negligence. This consent or assumption of risk extends to every risk of which the servant has knowledge or the means of knowledge, and in determining whether or not the servant has knowledge he will be presumed to be a person of ordinary capacity; he will be required to exercise his senses. Fleming v. St. Paul & D. R. Co., 27 Minn. 111; Hughes v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 27 Minn. 137; Clark v. St. Paul & S. C. Ry. Co., 28 Minn. 128; Pederson v. City of Rushford, 41 Minn. 289; Olson v. McMullen, 34 Minn. 94; Berger v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 39 Minn. 78; Walsh v. St. Paul & D. R. Co., 27 Minn. 367; Quick v. Minnesota Iron Co., 47 Minn. 361; Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Smithson, 45 Mich. 212.

No manufactory or business establishment is bound at its peril to make use only of the best and safest methods. Every man must be left to manage his own business in his own way. If his way is not the best, yet if others with full knowledge of what his way is see fit to cooperate with him in it, courts cannot interfere to prevent or punish the manufacturer in damages when the risks the servants voluntary assume result in injuries to those servants. Kelley v. Silver Spring Co., 12 R. I. 112; Sullivan v. India Mfg. Co., 113 Mass. 396; Hayden v. Smithville Mfg. Co., 29 Conn. 548.

The cases cited below illustrate the application of this rule of law to the accidental injury of servants under various circumstances: Gibson v. Erie Ry. Co., 63 N.Y. 449; employee killed by a projecting roof. DeForest v. Jewett, 88 N.Y. 264; employee killed by falling into a sluice. Kresanowski v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 18 F. 229; employee injured while riding on tender. O'Rorke v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 22 F. 189; car repairer killed while repairing car. Ennis v. Maharajah, 40 F. 784, and Pingree v. Leyland, 135 Mass. 398; man caught in a winch. Dillon v. Union Pac. R. Co., 3 Dill. 319; failure to provide signal bell on locomotive. Coullard v. Tecumseh Mills, 151 Mass. 85; Cariack v. Merchants' Woolen Co., 146 Mass. 182; Probert v. Phipps, 149 Mass. 258; boys injured in machinery. Taylor v. Carew Mfg. Co., 140 Mass. 150; employee injured by falling into an elevator well. Linch v. Sagamore Mfg. Co., 143 Mass. 206; employee injured by turning steam into defective pipes. Woods v. St. Paul & D. Ry. Co., 39 Mich. 435; brakeman injured in trestle work. Balle v. Detroit Leather Co., 73 Mich. 158; workman killed by falling into vat. Kean v. Detroit C. & B. R. Mills, 66 Mich. 277; man caught in iron rollers. Melzer v. Peninsular Car Co., 76 Mich. 94; employee injured on grindstone. Hickey v. Taaffe, 105 N.Y. 26; girl caught in ironing machine.

The law assumes that every one has knowledge of the destructive forces of nature and the powers of the earth and air. That fire will burn, water drown, ponderous machinery crush, projected bodies move and fall to the ground; that gravitation is a constantly acting force; that water makes a floor slippery; that a human being is liable to slip and fall in slippery places; knowledge of all these things come to all men of sound mind in the ordinary course of life. McGowan v. La Plata M. & S. Co., 3 McCrary, 393.

The peril, whatever it was, was plainly before plaintiff, he had but to look to be fully warned. Sjogren v. Hall, 53 Mich. 274; Truntle v. North Star W. M. Co., 57 Minn. 52.

The master is not guilty of negligence in setting the employee at work with dangerous machinery, though uncovered, if the latter is instructed with respect to operation of the machinery and the risks so that he might take care of himself, or if the employment and machinery are of such character that the risks are so apparent that the employee must necessarily comprehend them. Carroll v. Williston, 44 Minn. 287; Sullivan v. India Mfg. Co., 113 Mass. 396; Hayden v. Smithville Mfg. Co., 29 Conn. 548.

Knowledge on the part of the employer and ignorance on the part of the employee are of the gist of the action; or, in other words, the master must be at fault and know it and the servant must be free from fault and ignorant of the master's fault if the action is to be maintained. Doyle v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 42 Minn. 79.

Taylor, Calhoun & Rhodes, for respondent.

If the purpose for which a wheel is used requires it to be uncovered, the master could not reasonably be expected to cover it. A circular saw in operation is extremely dangerous, but the purpose for which it is used prevents its being covered and hence it is not reasonable that it should be. But in the case at bar neither defendant's business nor the operation of any of its machinery was in any way aided or made more convenient by leaving the wheel uncovered and unprotected. Placing an empty box over it would have made it perfectly safe. Leaving it wholly unprotected without any cause, immediately adjoining where the employee stood when starting or stopping the water wheel, an operation requiring his utmost strength and performed by turning a shaft in the same manner that a brake on a railway car is turned, was simply gross inexcusable carelessness. Under the circumstances defendant failed to perform its duty of providing a reasonably safe place for plaintiff to work in. He did not appreciate or realize the risk; it had never been explained to him in any manner, and that his foot was liable to be caught and drawn between the wheel and the floor had not occurred to him. While he knew that he might possibly fall on the wheel, the space between the wheel and the floor was so small that it had never occurred to him and he did not realize that he was liable to be drawn between the two.

The principle that a servant may know the condition of machinery fully and yet not be aware of the risk and hence not barred from recovery, is firmly imbedded in our law. McDonald v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 41 Minn. 439; Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. v. Fitzpatrick, 31 Ohio St. 479; Russell v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 32 Minn. 230; Woutilla v. Duluth L. Co., 37 Minn. 153; Clark v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 28 Minn. 128; Hungerford v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 41 Minn. 444; Hall v. Chicago B. & N. R. Co., 46 Minn. 439.

The case of Nadau v. White River L. Co., 76 Wis. 120, is quite similar to the case at bar. Plaintiff was caught in an uncovered cogwheel. See Kane v. Northern Cent. Ry. Co., 128 U.S. 91; Kelleher v. Milwaukee & N. R. Co., 80 Wis. 584.

Mitchell, J. Gilfillan, C. J., absent on account of sickness; took no part. Canty, J., dissenting.

OPINION

Mitchell, J.

This action was brought to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by defendant's negligently leaving unguarded and uncovered a pinion in its pulp mill, in which plaintiff was employed.

The power to operate the machinery was furnished by a water wheel under a small annex to the mill. This wheel was connected with the machinery by a horizontal shaft running under the floor of the annex. Upon the end of the shaft was a pinion connecting with a cog wheel immediately under the floor. This pinion was placed in a hole cut in the floor, so that it was partly above and partly below the floor. The hole in the floor was somewhat larger than the pinion, thus leaving an open space of two or three inches at the side of the pinion. When the machinery was in motion the pinion revolved quite rapidly. That part of the pinion which extended above the floor was open and unguarded. At one side of...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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