Smith v. Forrester-Nace Box Co.
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Citation | 193 Mo. 715,92 S.W. 394 |
Parties | SMITH v. FORRESTER-NACE BOX CO. |
Decision Date | 26 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.
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.
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, 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: 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-
Stein v. Battenfeld Oil & Grease Co.
... ... 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.
... ... 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.
... ... 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
... ... 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 ... ...