83 P. 986 (Kan. 1905), 14,348, The Creamery Package Manufacturing Company v. Daniels

Docket Nº:14,348
Citation:83 P. 986, 72 Kan. 418
Opinion Judge:MASON, J.
Party Name:THE CREAMERY PACKAGE MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. CHESTER DANIELS
Attorney:Harkless, Crysler & Histed, and A. L. Berger, for plaintiff in error. Charles R. Cooksey, and Bird & Pope, for defendant in error.
Judge Panel:MASON, J. All the Justices concurring.
Case Date:December 09, 1905
Court:Supreme Court of Kansas
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 986

83 P. 986 (Kan. 1905)

72 Kan. 418

THE CREAMERY PACKAGE MANUFACTURING COMPANY

v.

CHESTER DANIELS

No. 14,348

Supreme Court of Kansas

December 9, 1905

Decided. July, 1905.

Error from Wyandotte district court; J. MCCABE MOORE, judge.

Judgment reversed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

MASTER AND SERVANT--Personal Injuries--Assumption of Risk. In an action brought by an employee to recover for personal injuries sustained through the negligent omission of the employer to remove or cover a circular saw when not in use, findings that the plaintiff knew that the saw was in motion and knew the effect of coming in contact with it will prevent his recovering judgment, when it is further found that the defendant was not negligent in any other respect. [*]

Harkless, Crysler & Histed, and A. L. Berger, for plaintiff in error.

Charles R. Cooksey, and Bird & Pope, for defendant in error.

MASON, J. All the Justices concurring.

OPINION

MASON, J.

Chester Daniels, a boy not quite eighteen years of age, was injured while in the employ of the Creamery Package Manufacturing Company. He brought an action against the company, alleging that his injury was due to its negligence, and recovered a judgment for $ 600, from which the defendant prosecutes error.

The plaintiff worked near a small circular saw, his work requiring him to pass back and forth near it. Upon one occasion, while carrying some boards by it in the course of his employment, the floor being strewn with sawdust, he stepped upon a "cull-head," [72 Kan. 419] or piece of waste board, slipped and fell, and in falling threw out one hand, which came in contact with the saw and was severely mangled. In his petition he alleged that the defendant was negligent in these respects: (1) In failing to provide sufficient light in the room where the machinery was; (2) in allowing the passageway over which the plaintiff was required to go back and forth near the saw to become and remain obstructed; (3) in failing either to remove or cover the saw whenever, as at the time of the injury, it was not in use.

In response to a special question, however, asking the jury to state fully in what the negligence of the defendant consisted, the answer was returned: "For not removing saw from mandrel or covering it up when not in use." This is in effect a...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP