Cole v. North American Lead Co.
| Decision Date | 29 February 1912 |
| Citation | 144 S.W. 855,240 Mo. 397 |
| Parties | COLE v. NORTH AMERICAN LEAD CO. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Plaintiff was injured by throwing his hand against the knives of a planing machine, which consisted of a metallic table, divided into two sections; the section in front of the knives being adjustable at different heights. The knives were set in a rotating cylinder or axle between the sections, which was operated by a belt leading to a shaft in the floor, which was connected with a belt running on a countershaft in the ceiling, all of the machinery being operated from the engine room by shafting, and the operator would lower the adjustable part of the table, so that the board would be cut to the proper depth. Rev. St. 1899, § 6433, requires the belting, shafting, gearing, and drums in all manufacturing establishments, when so placed as to be dangerous to employés while engaged in their ordinary duties, to be safely guarded, when possible. Held, that the statute did not apply to the working parts of a machine, but only to the parts used to transmit power, such as shafting, etc., and the axle on which the knives were fixed was not a "shafting," so as to require it to be guarded; that term ordinarily meaning a system of rods or shafts, usually cylindrical, used for communicating power from an engine to machines, sometimes being different in meaning from "shaft," which may mean any axle or other long and usually cylindrical bar, especially if rotating.
Case Certified from St. Louis Court of Appeals.
Action by R. B. Cole against the North American Lead Company. Judgment of the St. Louis Court of Appeals affirming a judgment for defendant, and case certified to the Supreme Court on the ground of conflicting opinions. Judgment affirmed, and the conflicting opinion overruled.
B. H. Boyer and T. B. Burks, for appellant. E. D. Anthony and Samuel W. Fordyce, Jr., for respondent.
This is an action for damages for personal injuries sustained by appellant through the alleged negligence of the respondent, and is here on certification by the St. Louis Court of Appeals, for the reason that the opinion thereof (130 Mo. App. 253, 112 S. W. 753) is in conflict with the opinion of the Kansas City Court of Appeals, in the case of Millsap v. Beggs, 122 Mo. App. 1, 97 S. W. 956.
On account of the much interest manifested in this case, and the earnestness with which the legal propositions are discussed, we deem it best to add a few observations to the able opinion delivered by the St. Louis Court of Appeals. The questions involved are well briefed and ably discussed by counsel for both parties; and we are also favored with an able brief and argument by counsel amicus curiæ.
A clearer insight will be had of the case, if we keep in mind the statute upon which the cause of action, as stated in the petition, is predicated, namely, section 6433, R. S. 1899, which reads as follows: "The belting, shafting, gearing and drums, in all manufacturing, mechanical and other establishments in this state, when so placed as to be dangerous to persons employed therein or thereabout while engaged in their ordinary duties, shall be safely and securely guarded when possible; if not possible, then notice of its danger shall be conspicuously posted in such establishments." From this reading of the statute, it is seen that it does not require the entire machinery in the establishment mentioned to be guarded, nor all of the parts thereof, but it simply provides that the "belting, shafting, gearing and drums" shall be safely guarded.
It seems to us that the old maxim, "Expressio unius est exclusio alterius," applies here with great force and effect; for otherwise, why did the Legislature single out and name those four parts of this class of machinery and require them to be safely guarded, if it was not the design to limit the guards to those parts alone, but did intend to embrace all parts of the machinery, when so placed as to be dangerous to persons employed therein? And especially does that seem to be the intention of the Legislature, when we remember that prior to that enactment operators of machinery could, with perfect impunity, leave all parts of their machinery unguarded and incur no legal liability whatever on that account, except, probably, in those cases where other negligence might contribute therewith and cause an injury.
Now, it is common knowledge that the belting, shafting, gearing and drums constitute a very small part of the machinery employed in the great manufacturing establishments of the state and throughout the country. If all four of those parts should be detached and removed from such a building, I dare say they would scarcely be noticed, except by the skilled eye of the machinist. It is also common knowledge that the four parts mentioned, and required by the statute to be safely guarded, constitute no part of the power plant proper, nor of the machinery proper, which produces the fabric or finished product. Those four parts are the connecting links, as it were, between the two, carrying the power from the former and delivering it to and distributing it throughout the latter.
Common observation and experience also teach us that, in the absence of negligence on the part of employers, there are comparatively few cases of personal injuries inflicted by the engine itself, or by the machinery proper, both of which, while in operation, are under the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stein v. Battenfeld Oil & Grease Co.
... ... Co., 253 S.W. 367; Poppen v. Wagner El. Co., 2 ... S.W.2d 199; Cole v. Lead Co., 144 S.W. 855; ... Guidice v. Mfg. Co., 8 S.W.2d 964; ... His face was toward the north and the switchbox was slightly ... [39 S.W.2d 347] ... south of him so ... In ... Cole v. North American Lead Co., 240 Mo. 397, 405, 144 ... S.W. 855, 856, quoting from Huss v ... ...