Bean v. Keller Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 19 February 1909
• Parties: BEAN v. KELLER MFG. CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

107 Minn. 162

119 N.W. 801

BEAN

v.KELLER MFG. CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Feb. 19, 1909.

Appeal from District Court, Stearns County; M. D. Taylor, Judge.

Action by William G. Bean against the Keller Manufacturing Company. Verdict directed for defendant. From an order denying a new trial, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

In an action for damages for personal injuries, it is held that the trial court properly directed a verdict for defendant on the ground that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. James R. Bennett, Jr., and Dodge & Tautges, for appellant.

Theodore Bruener and Reynolds & Roeser, for respondent.

BROWN, J.

Action for personal injuries, in which, at the close of plaintiff's case, the court directed a verdict for defendant on the ground of contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff, and the latter appealed from an order denying a new trial.

Plaintiff, 46 years of age, was employed at defendant's factory, and had been so employed for 2 years prior to the accident complained of. He had during that time been engaged in operating different machines used and employed in the factory and moved by motive power. At the time of his injury he was operating a tenoning machine, equipped with revolving knives for tenoning wagon spokes and a rapidly revolving circular saw used in trimming the ends of the spokes preparatory to their use in another part of the factory. He had worked at this particular machine but a few days; but the evidence shows that from his experience in the factory he was familiar with it, and also with the dangers incident to its operation. The frame to which the saw and knives were attached was of ordinary construction, and extended along and in close proximity to the wall of the factory building. His position in operating the machine was in front of the frame facing the wall. Upon the wall, in receptacles prepared for the purpose, hung a wrench and other tools necessary for use in connection with the operation of the machine, and an oil can, all within reaching distance from plaintiff's position when working the machine. The circular saw was located at one end of the frame and about 20 inches from the wall of the building, while the frame itself was but 11 inches from the wall. The machine was started and stopped by the use of a lever located on the side thereof near the position of the operator. The saw was wholly unguarded, and plaintiff was injured by coming in contact with it in the following manner: At about the close of the day's work, on October 12, 1907, at 5:30 in the evening, plaintiff heard a ‘squeaking noise’ in some of the gearings of the machine which suggested to him that some of the bearings required oiling. He testified that he could not locate the sound from his place at the machine, so he went around to the back of the frame, to ascertain its precise location and then oil it. He located the point requiring oiling, and then reached toward the oil can held in the receptacle on the wall, and in some manner slipped and fell, striking his elbow on the revolving saw, and receiving the injuries complained of. He thereafter brought this action for damages, and in his complaint charged defendant with negligence in three respects: (1) The failure properly to guard the saw, as required by statute; (2) the failure to warn and instruct plaintiff of the dangers and hazards incident to his work; and (3) the failure to provide him a safe place in which to perform the duties of his employment. Defendant answered, denying the negligence alleged against it, and affirmatively alleging that the accident was caused solely by the contributory negligence of plaintiff.

There is no doubt that defendant was, under the evidence, chargeable with actionable negligence for its failure to guard the saw; and this would entitle plaintiff to a verdict, irrespective of the other grounds alleged by him, unless he either assumed the risk of...