Smith v. Forrester-Nace Box Co.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Citation193 Mo. 715,92 S.W. 394
PartiesSMITH v. FORRESTER-NACE BOX CO.
Decision Date26 February 1906

Plaintiff, a man 45 years of age and of ordinary intelligence, was injured by a piece of board striking his hand as it was being run through a planer in front of the back rollers. He saw when he began to work on the planer that it had no shield over such rollers, and knew that the board, in passing through the planer, passed under a presser bar and through such rollers. The bar was within six or eight inches of the back rollers, and at the time of the accident was running at a speed of 15 feet per second. There was a space of about 5 inches between the end of the board and the back rollers and plaintiff testified that he put his hand into the space for the purpose of lifting the board out of the planer. Held, that defendant was not negligent in failing to warn plaintiff against such an act, the danger of which was obvious.

3. SAME — CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE — EXCUSE —CUSTOM.

Plaintiff was not relieved from contributory negligence by a custom on the part of employés in case the planer become clogged with shavings or sticks to remove the same from the space in question with their hands.

4. SAME.

Where there was only 8 inches of space between the presser bar and back rollers of a planer, it was negligence for plaintiff to attempt to so bend a 3/8-inch board 3½ to 4 feet long as to cause it to pass out over the back rollers instead of through them.

5. SAME.

Where plaintiff could have stopped a planer in order to have unclogged it without danger of injury by merely throwing a lever and shifting the belt, but attempted to do so while the machine was in operation and was injured, he was guilty of contributory negligence precluding a recovery.

6. SAME—STATUTES.

Rev. St. 1899, § 6433, providing that the belting, shafting, gearing, and drums in all manufacturing establishments, when so placed as to be dangerous to persons employed therein shall be safely and securely guarded when possible, and if not possible that notice shall be posted, has no application to a planer which defendant permitted its employés to operate without a hood.

7. SAME—PROXIMATE CAUSE.

Where plaintiff's act in placing his hand in a planer between the presser bar and the back rollers while the machine was in motion would have resulted in injury to his hand to some extent regardless of whether the back of the machine was covered with a shield or not, the fact that a shield originally provided in front of the rollers had been broken off and defendant's servants had been permitted to operate the machine in such condition for two months prior to the accident, was insufficient to justify a recovery, since, if the absence of the shield increased the danger, it also increased plaintiff's contributory negligence in putting his hand in the machine.

Valliant, J., dissenting.

In Banc. Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; J. H. Slover, Judge.

Action by Samuel B. Smith against the Forrester-Nace Box Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

Harkless, Crysler & Histed, for appellant. L. B. Sawyer and Porterfield & Conrad, for respondent.

MARSHALL, J.

This is an action for $10,000 damages for personal injuries received by the plaintiff on the 31st of December 1901, while in the employ of the defendant as a helper in operating a planer used by the defendant in manufacturing boxes. The plaintiff recovered a judgment of $7,000, from which the defendant, after proper steps, appealed.

The issues: The petition after alleging the corporate capacity of the defendant and the fact that the plaintiff was engaged as a helper in operating a planer in the defendant's factory charges, "That the said planer was defective and out of repair in this, to wit, the shield which acts as a protection to the operator and helper was broken off, and had been off, for at least two months prior thereto; that said machine was so defectively constructed and out of repair that it would clog up when used in planing short, thin lumber, which condition of said machinery was unknown to plaintiff;" that on the day of the accident by reason of its defective condition, the planer became clogged up with the short, thin lumber, and it was the duty of the plaintiff, in the exercise of his employment, to clean out the same; that in doing so, plaintiff, in the exercise of ordinary care, and with no fault on his part, took hold of a piece of lumber, and by reason of the defective condition of said planer and the absence of the aforesaid shield, plaintiff's left hand came in contact with the said planer, and was greatly injured. The negligence charged in the petition is, "First, that defendant was careless and negligent in furnishing plaintiff with machinery, which was, on December 31, 1901, and had been for a long time prior thereto, in a dangerous and defective condition as hereinbefore stated, which defects were known, or by the exercise of ordinary care might have been known, to defendant. Second, that defendant was negligent and careless in not warning plaintiff of the danger in connection with said work and said defective machine, knowing plaintiff to be inexperienced in such work, and that plaintiff did not know of said defect in said machinery. Plaintiff says that he is not able to state more definitely or with more certainty than is hereinbefore stated, the defective condition of said planer, or the time, place, and circumstances, when, where and how he received the said injuries." The petition then sets out the nature and character of the injuries received, and asks judgment for $10,000. The answer is a general denial, coupled with a plea of contributory negligence and assumption of risks. The reply is a general denial.

The case made is this: About the 1st of December, 1901, the plaintiff entered into the employment of the defendant and worked in the yard handling lumber. Two or three days before the date of the accident he was assigned to duty as helper to the operator who was running the planer, his duties being to carry off the lumber from the machine, and to help clean it out when it got clogged. The planer could be so adjusted as to plane lumber varying in thickness from 3/8 of an inch to 6 inches. During the time the plaintiff was engaged as such helper the machine clogged quite frequently. Two or three times the plaintiff and the operator stopped the planer to clean it out. At other times they cleaned it while it was running. No instructions had been given to the plaintiff or the operator as to stopping or not stopping the machine when unclogging or cleaning it. That was a matter that was left entirely to the discretion and judgment of the operators and they stopped it or not as they chose and as they deemed best. Plaintiff thus describes the planer, and for the purposes of this case the description will be accepted as correct: "The planer was about hip high. At the front of the planer there was a pair of rollers, one above the other to lift the boards into the machine. A little further back was another pair of rollers to start the boards under the knives—then the knives. There was a space of 18 inches between the knives and another pair of rollers at the back end of the planer. In this 18-inch space there was an iron bar, called the presser bar, crossing the planer. The presser bar did not in any way interfere with any one working about the machine as plaintiff was when injured. From the presser bar to the back rollers there was a space of from 6 to 8 inches. The back rollers carried off the finished boards to the plaintiff, who bore them to their place in the factory. The planer was constructed with a shield made of cast iron, oval in shape to conform to the shape of the top roller, and fitted down over the front part of the top of the back rollers. The shield was fastened to the roller so that when the roller was raised by a thick board passing under it, the shield raised with it. The shield came down over the front roller so that the lower edge of the shield nearly touched upon the boards as they passed between the back rollers no matter what their thickness was." In addition to the foregoing description, it is only necessary to say that the presser bar, which crossed the roller in the 18-inch space between the knives and the back roller and which was within 6 to 8 inches from the back rollers, was simply a piece of round iron or steel, the purpose of which is not very definitely stated in the testimony, but the object of which could only have been to hold the board in place while passing through the machine so as to conduct it to the back rollers, and to prevent it from rising out of the machine before it reached the back rollers. And further to say, that the shield that had formerly been over the back rollers extended to within a fraction of an inch of the board that passed through the back rollers and had a piece of leather at its lower end which touched the board as it passed through the roller. The knives were covered so as to prevent any one working around the machine from coming in contact with them, and did not cause the accident in question, nor were they charged or shown to have been defective.

The gravamen of the negligence...

To continue reading

Request your trial
59 cases
  • Stein v. Battenfeld Oil & Grease Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • May 21, 1931
    ... ... 235, 242 S.W. 400; ... Louisville Ry. Co. v. Wilson, 138 U.S. 501, 34 L.Ed ... 1023; Vane v. Newcomb & Smith, 132 U.S. 220, 33 ... L.Ed. 310; Robinson v. Railroad Co., 237 U.S. 84, 59 ... L.Ed. 849. (c) There is no merit whatever in the contention ... ...
  • Greenan v. Emerson Elec. Mfg. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 3, 1945
    ... ... 385; ... George v. St. Louis Mfg. Co., 159 Mo. 333, 59 S.W ... 1097; Doerr v. St. L. Brewing Assn., 176 Mo. 547, 75 ... S.W. 600; Smith v. Forrester-Nace Box Co., 193 Mo ... 715, 92 S.W. 394; Rogers v. Tegarden Packing Co., ... 185 Mo.App. 99, 170 S.W. 675; Johnson v. Natl ... ...
  • Robb v. St. Louis Public Service Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 6, 1944
    ... ... Electric Term ... R. Co., 310 Mo. 227, 274 S.W. 1025; Sweet v ... Bunn, 195 Mo.App. 500, 193 S.W. 897; Britt v ... Crebo, 199 S.W. 154; Smith v. Forrester-Nace Box ... Co., 193 Mo. 715, 92 S.W. 394; Kincaid v. Birt, ... 29 S.W.2d 97; Stoll v. First Natl. Bank, 345 Mo ... 582, 134 S.W.2d ... ...
  • Sanders v. Quercus Lumber Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • January 30, 1915
    ... ... action based upon the alleged violation of this statute ... Colliott v. American Mfg. Co., 71 Mo.App. 170; ... Smith v. Box Co., 193 Mo. 715; Saling v ... American Chicle Co., 166 S.W. 823; Huss v. Heydt ... Bakery Co., 210 Mo. 44; Simpson v. Witte Iron ... ...
  • 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