Cole v. North American Lead Co.

• Decision Date: 31 March 1908
• Parties: COLE v. NORTH AMERICAN LEAD CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

112 S.W. 753

COLE v. NORTH AMERICAN LEAD CO.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

March 31, 1908.

1. MASTER AND SERVANT—INJURY TO SERVANT —NEGLIGENCE.

That near a planing machine were some shavings on the floor on a block of wood in which the operator stepped, throwing him off his balance, causing his hand to get in the knives of the machine, was not actionable negligence.

2. SAME — GUARDING MACHINERY — "SHAFTING."

The knives of a planing machine, set in a rotating cylinder or axle, are not shafting, within Rev. St. 1899, § 6433 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 3217), requiring "the belting, shafting, gearing and drums" in manufacturing establishments, when so placed as to be dangerous to employés, to be guarded when possible; the connection showing that the statute is intended to apply, not to tools proper, but to mechanical devices by which the tools are operated, and section 4160 requiring all words used in a law, except technical ones, to be given their usual sense, and technical words to be given their import as used by experts.

3. SAME—CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.

The operator of a planing machine, who started it up, then raked some shavings from under it with his left hand, with the other not far from the planer knives, and, rising from his stooping position, stepped on a block of wood covered with shavings, which turned, throwing him off his balance, and his right hand against the knives, was not guilty of negligence as matter of law.

4. WORDS AND PHRASES—"SHAFT."

The word "shaft" is defined as an axle, mandrel, arbor, or other long and usually cylindrical bar, especially if rotating, and subject to torsional stress; a lengthy shafting.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Madison County; Chas. A. Killian, Judge.

Action by one Cole against the North American Lead Company. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed and certified to the Supreme Court.

B. H. Boyer and Jerry B. Burks, for appellant. E. D. Anthony and J. F. Lee, for respondent.

GOODE, J.

This plaintiff lost part of his right hand in consequence of its slipping against the knives of a planing machine in defendant's factory, and instituted this action for damages. The machine consisted of a metallic table, with a smooth surface. The table, which was about a foot in width, was divided into two sections; the section in front of the knives being adjustable at different heights. Between the two sections were the planing knives. They were set in a metallic cylinder or axle which rotated rapidly. In planing, the operator would lower the adjustable table so the surface of the board to be planed would be cut to the proper depth, and would then slide the board against and over the knives, passing it over the stationary end of the table behind the knives. The pedestal on which the table was placed had two openings in the side under the table and near the floor. Shavings would fall into this pedestal, and either pass out at the opening or be raked out by the operator. If allowed to remain in the pedestal, they would choke the machine. The shaft or axle on which the knives were fixed was run by a belt leading to a shaft in the floor of the shop, which shaft was, in turn, connected with a belt running on a countershaft near the ceiling. All the machinery in the room was operated by power transmitted from the engine room by shafting. This plaintiff, in obedience to an order from his foreman, undertook to plane a piece of timber. At the time the planing machine was idle, but plaintiff adjusted the belting so as to set it in motion. After it had started, he stooped to rake some shavings from the pedestal with his left hand, having his right hand not far from the knives at the time. As he raised from his stooping posture, he stepped on a block of wood lying on the floor and covered with shavings. The block turned, throwing plaintiff off his balance and his right hand against the knives of the planer, which lopped off a portion of three of his fingers and his thumb. At the conclusion of the testimony the court directed a verdict for defendant, and plaintiff appealed.

A careful study of the pleadings and evidence has satisfied us there is only one question of doubt raised on the appeal; that is, whether or not the planing machine ought to have been guarded in obedience to the statute, which says: "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...