Brasel v. W. T. Letts Box & Cooperage Co.

• Decision Date: 01 December 1919
• Docket Number: No. 13324.,13324.
• Citation: 220 S.W. 984
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Parties: BRASEL v. W. T. LETTS BOX & COOPERAGE CO.

220 S.W. 984

BRASEL v. W. T. LETTS BOX & COOPERAGE CO.

No. 13324.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

December 1, 1919.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Buchanan County; L. A. Vories, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by Maxie L. Brasel by Eliza Brasel, his next friend, against W. T. Letts Box & Cooperage Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

K. B. Randolph, of St. Joseph, and John J. Cosgrove, of Kansas City, for appellant.

Mytton & Parkinson, of St. Joseph, for respondent.

TRIMBLE, J.

Plaintiff, a young man about 19 years of age was an employé in defendant's box factory, engaged, at a circular crosscut or cutoff saw, in cutting boards into certain short lengths for boxes which were being made. During the work his left hand was thrown against the topmost part of the saw, and the thumb and index finger were seriously and permanently injured. He brought suit on the ground that the saw was not properly guarded as required by section 7828, R. S. 1909. The answer pleaded contributory negligence. Over defendant's demurrer to the evidence the case was submitted to the jury, which returned a verdict of $2,500. From a judgment thereon, defendant has appealed.

The saw, operated by electric power, was 10 inches in diameter, and was set in a table near the left end thereof, the highest part of the circumference of the saw extending above the top of the table about 2½ or 3 inches, the saw being about 18 inches from the side of the table where the operator stands. The table was about 4 feet high and 9 feet long. In front of the revolving saw and on the side next to the operator, was a "carrier," or "push table," a contrivance so arranged as to slide over the table toward and past the front edge of the saw at the top of the table, stopping only when the perpendicular diameter of the saw was reached, and when so reached one-half of the exposed portion of the saw was covered. There was a crosswise opening in the carrier slightly wider than the thickness of the saw, in which it moved so as to allow the carrier to be pushed past the edge of the saw. The plank or piece to be cut lay in front of and against the carrier and was pushed against the saw by means of a handhold on top of the carrier said handhold being about six inches from the top of the table. When the carrier reached the farthest point it would go, namely, to the perpendicular diameter of the saw or to one-half of the segment above the table the front edge of the saw had passed through the carrier in the slit or opening provided therefor, and extended possibly two inches beyond the carrier on the side next to the operator. There Was, however, on this side of the carrier, where the saw would thus come through, a hood or case of metal fastened to the carrier and at right angles to it, into which that portion of the saw coming past the carrier would run. When the carrier, therefore, had been pushed to its fullest extent, the front half of the segment of the saw was covered by the carrier and the outside crosswise hood fastened thereto. As the carrier was some two inches or more in thickness, and as the board to be cut lay against and in front of the carrier, it is manifest that the cutting operation would be completed before, or at least by the time, the carrier reached its farthest point. So that the carrier and the hood on the outside of the latter would not operate to guard the saw except as to the front half of the segment above the table and would not do that until the cutting of the board was complete, and even then they did not cover the entire top of the saw but extended only to the topmost point thereof. Back of the saw and about an inch and a half from it was an upright piece of iron about an inch or more wide of the same thickness as the saw and with the edge toward it so as to put the iron in the same plane with the saw. This iron piece was about seven inches high. It leaned slightly toward the saw the top being about two inches from a perpendicular. In the top of this piece was a hole; but there was no horizontal guard extending from the top of this piece out over the saw. Manifestly, the hole afforded a place in which to fasten a horizontal guard which would extend out over the saw, completely covering it at all times, whether the carrier was away from or up to the saw. Defendant sought to escape the implication raised by the presence of a hole in the upright piece by saying that it was taken from another machine and placed in this saw and was not the one made for it. Of course, the jury were not obliged to accept this explanation. However, as the handhold on the carrier would have to pass under such horizontal guard and was about six inches above the table, such a guard put on could not come nearer than that distance to the top of the table, nor closer than three or three and one-half inches to the top of the saw, since the latter extended only two and one-half or three inches above the top of the table.

While plaintiff was sawing a board into proper box lengths, a piece of wood five inches long by one in width became lodged against the upright iron piece above described, and between it and the saw, and stopped the board and the carrier pushing it from passing over the table in the process of cutting. The greater length of this five-inch piece was on the left-hand side of the saw, but, the piece extended between the saw and the upright iron about an inch or more to the right of the saw. Plaintiff pulled the carrier back, and, leaning over, with his left hand took hold of the piece at a point three inches from the saw and attempted to draw it out to the left or away from the saw. In doing so the end of the piece touched the saw, and this jerked plaintiff's hand against the top of the saw, resulting in it being injured.

The first contention we will dispose of is that there was no violation of the statute, as the saw was guarded as well as it practically could be. We cannot agree with this contention. Certainly we cannot say that, unquestionably, such was the case. Under no other situation could we interfere with the jury's verdict on that issue. It is true there was an upright piece at the rear of the saw and a hood on the carrier, and these were guards as far as they went; but, as stated, the upright piece guarded only the rear and lower portion of the segment of the saw above the table; and, without a horizontal guard extending out over the saw, such upright performed only a very slight and imperfect service as a guard. And, as also stated, the hood on the carrier, combined with the carrier itself, protected merely the front half of the saw, and then only when cutting operation was complete or nearly so. A state deputy factory inspector, testifying in plaintif...