Bear State Lumber Co. v. Knight

• Decision Date: 16 May 1910
• Citation: 128 S.W. 869
• Parties: BEAR STATE LUMBER CO. v. KNIGHT.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

128 S.W. 869

BEAR STATE LUMBER CO. v. KNIGHT.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

May 16, 1910.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; Jeff T. Cowling, Special Judge.

Action by C. F. Knight against the Bear State Lumber Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Appellee was an engineer employed by appellant in operating a planer at Womble in Montgomery county, Ark. Appellee in his complaint describes the manner of his injury as follows: "On the 17th day of June, 1908, while he was engaged in operating the engine of said plant, the inside bearing of the line shaft situated in the engine room became so heated that it required the plaintiff's immediate attention; that prior to said date above last mentioned the defendant had placed in the natural and more easy way of access to the point where the said line shaft required plaintiff's attention an oil tank which completely barred the passageway to the point so affected, and while he was compelled to take a more devious route, and while pursuing the only route left to him to the point affected, and to which attention was necessary, he had to pass between the main belt and underneath the main belt tightener frame and the shaft, which said shaft extended within six inches of the wall of the room; and that in attempting to pass underneath said shaft plaintiff's clothing was caught by a defective screw in a collar upon said line shaft, and he was violently thrown to the floor and against the framework supporting the line shaft to which plaintiff, in the extreme emergency of the conditions and his helplessness to otherwise protect himself, caught for support." Appellee alleges that he was injured through the negligence of appellant in this: (1) That on the belt tightener shaft there was a defective improvised gas pipe coupler, which had been placed on said pipe for a collar, or in place of a collar, and into which said coupler two set screws had been placed on opposite sides of the said coupler, the defect in said coupler being that it contained no countersinks or sinks into which said set screws could be fixed, thereby causing said set screws to stand out over and above the said coupler for the space of an inch, which greatly increased the risk and danger of operating said machinery or repairing or adjusting any defects or irregularities that might occur in the operation of said machinery, by placing an oil tank in such position as to cut off and preclude a passageway for the plaintiff to pass from any point to and about the machinery in said building to the overheated line shaft where his duties naturally were, and forcing him to take a more circuitous route to the said line shaft, as above set forth. The answer denied the material allegations of the complaint and set up the defense of contributory negligence and assumed risk.

Among other things, the appellee testified as follows: "I was foreman and had charge of the job. I put all the machinery in place. Mr. Trumbull was the boss. He claimed to be a...