Arkadelphia Lumber Co. v. Bethea

• Decision Date: 17 December 1892
• Citation: 20 S.W. 808
• Parties: ARKADELPHIA LUMBER CO. v. BETHEA.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

20 S.W. 808

ARKADELPHIA LUMBER CO. v. BETHEA.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

December 17, 1892.

Appeal from circuit court, Clark county; RUFUS D. HEARN, Judge.

Action by Philip E. Bethea against the Arkadelphia Lumber Company for personal injuries received in the course of employment. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

J. H. Crawford and U. M. & G. B. Rose, for appellant. H. W. McMillan and G. W. Murphy, for appellee.

HEMINGWAY, J.

This was an action on the part of an employe to recover for personal injuries received in the course of his employment. The verdict and judgment were in his favor, and the defendant has appealed.

The appeal questions only the sufficiency of the evidence to warrant any recovery. That it is not the province of this court to determine a question as to the preponderance of evidence is the established rule; but where it is contended that all the evidence in support of a verdict is legally insufficient to warrant it, it is our duty to determine that question, having no regard to the evidence tending against it. In doing so we assume that every fact is as favorable for the successful party as the jury could have found it, and upon the case thus made determine if the verdict is warranted. We have considered this case in conformity to the rule stated, and, in doing so, find the following case: The plaintiff was engaged to oil a planing machine, and while so doing had his fingers caught and cut off by a revolving cylinder of knives, which constituted the effective principle of the machine. In order to oil it, he had to go under the machine, rest in a reclining attitude upon his side, and so elevate the bowl of the oil can as to give the neck a sufficient declension for the oil to flow. The can he used, which was furnished by the company, was 22 inches long, and could be used only when the bowl was enough higher than the mouth to cause the oil to flow down. The cylinder of knives extended from the top of the machine downward, and was above him when he was engaged under the machine. When raising the bowl of the can for the oil to flow out, his hand proceeded in the direction of the knives, and it was in this act that he received the injury complained of. It was necessary that the hand should be moved towards the knives, but the work could have been performed without coming in contact with them; and if he had caught the handle attached to the bowl so as to keep the bowl above his hand, it would have protected him against the knives. A spring bottom can might have been used without raising it as high as was necessary in using the one furnished; but cans of the latter kind were in general use for the purpose. The particular can was in good condition, and the machine, which was of a kind in general use, was likewise in good condition. In some respects it differed from planing machines of a different make, but no difference existed in the operation or exposure of the knives. Its full dimensions are not disclosed, but it appears that the top of the cylinder, as it revolved, was upon a level with the top of the machine, and that the bottom of the cylinder was 28 inches above the floor. There was a transverse iron bar an inch in diameter, which furnished a means of adjusting the knives to the material to be dressed, and was 6 inches below the cylinder. The oil box which plaintiff was required to oil was 10 inches from the bar, and 18 inches above the floor. He had to insert the can between the bar and the cylinder in order to give it the declension necessary for the oil to flow, and, as the oil box was 3 inches lower than the bar, the bowl of the can was necessarily higher. When the machine was in operation...