Connors-Weyman Steel Co. v. Harless
| Decision Date | 21 November 1918 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 952 |
| Citation | 80 So. 399,202 Ala. 317 |
| Parties | CONNORS-WEYMAN STEEL CO. v. HARLESS. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Dec. 19, 1918
Appeal from Circuit Court, Shelby County; Lum Duke, Judge.
Suit by Virgil H. Harless against the Connors-Weyman Steel Company. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Appellee brought suit against the appellant for the recovery of damages, for personal injuries received while engaged in discharging the duties of his employment in the rolling mill of appellant.
There are numerous counts in the complaint; but those relied upon are based upon alleged defects in the rolls, in that the rolls were negligently lined or adjusted. Some of the counts are based upon a failure of defendant to furnish the plaintiff a reasonably safe place in which to work. The rolls are the particular pieces of machinery at which the plaintiff worked at the time of his injury.
Defendant pleaded the general issue, and contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff, it being insisted that plaintiff's injuries proximately resulted not from any defects in the rolls, or their adjustment, but from the unsafe condition of the guard or guides attached to the rolls; it being plaintiff's duty to keep the guard or guides in safe condition.
The only errors assigned are based upon the rulings of the court in the admission of evidence, and on its refusal to grant defendant's motion for a new trial because of the verdict being contrary to the weight of evidence.
The evidence for the plaintiff tended to show that at the time of the injury he (plaintiff) was working as a "rougher" in front of a set of roughing rolls which are cylindrically shaped, about 4 1/2 feet long and 9 inches in diameter, three in number, and placed horizontally one above the other. They are so operated that the top and bottom rolls revolve in an opposite direction. These rolls have grooves or passes of varying sizes in them. Into these grooves or passes soft red hot steel bars or billets are inserted, and the revolving of the rolls draw them through reducing them in size and increasing them in length. There is a guard box for each pass or groove in use, the same being situated on the side of the rolls where the billets or bars come out. The guide is inserted at the bottom of the pass or groove, and the side guards fit against the guide, and, with the top guard, form what is called the guard box. The end of the guide, which fits in the pass, is triangular in shape. The guard box extends about 8 or 10 inches from the roll. The hole through this box is larger than the pass or groove. The purpose of the guide is to start the iron straight and keep it from wrapping around the rolls, and, as testified by the appellee, is supposed to keep it straight for 8 inches. The rolls when in operation revolve very rapidly. The delivery and speed of the bars as they come from the pass in the rolls is described by one witness as being "as fast as you can move your arm back."
It was the duty of the plaintiff, as a rougher, with the aid of a pair of tongs to send through the passes or grooves in said rolls soft red hot steel bars or billets, which were received by the rougher on the opposite side of the rolls, and by him passed back to the plaintiff through the next groove or pass in use, and so on until the bar was rolled out to the required size and length. The plaintiff had no duties in regard to inspecting or changing the rolls or adjusting them but it was his duty to help to change them; and, further, his duty to keep in proper order the guides and guard box. It was the duty of the "roller boss" to keep the rolls properly adjusted, lined up, and kept in proper repair.
The testimony for the plaintiff further tended to show that just prior to the injury he had examined the guides and guard box and they were in order and good condition. There was further evidence from which the jury could infer that the upper and middle rolls had been lined up just prior to the injury, and that the liners had worked or slipped out at one end; that the bar which injured the appellee showed an "overfill," a raised place on it one-sixth of an inch larger than the bar coming through the hole in the guard box. The guard box does not fit tight over the guide, but there is a little room for play, and it is wider than the guide. There is nothing holding the liners, and when the mill is in operation there is considerable vibration.
At the time of his injury plaintiff had been working only a short time, having sent two or three red hot bars through the rolls; these came out straight. Plaintiff testified that the one which injured him came out in a circle, saying:
He stated further that the bar went through his thigh from the "front to the back"--cut the leaders and muscles. The testimony tended to show a permanent injury, and that the bar which produced the injury was about an inch square and about 8 feet in length.
Plaintiff was about 25 years of age, a married man, with a wife and one child, and was earning at the time $5 and $6 per day. He had been working at the roller mill of defendant for about 2 years, and had been working at this particular position of rougher for 4 or 5 months.
The evidence for the defendant tended to show that the guide box was out of adjustment, and that caused the red hot bar to turn toward the plaintiff and cause the injury, and that there was no defect whatever in the rolls, lining, or adjustment.
In the course of the examination, the plaintiff was asked the following question:
"I will ask you to state to the jury what, in your opinion, caused the iron, this rod or billet, to turn to the left as it came out."
Defendant objected to the question on the ground that it called for incompetent, immaterial, and irrelevant testimony, which objection was overruled, and to which exception was reserved. The witness then answered:
"Well, my best judgment as to what caused the iron to come out crooked is the rolls had been raised up in order to make the passage larger so as it would take the iron and they wound the rolls up and put in those liners, and it had been running for about 30 minutes and those liners worked out, and that let one end of the rolls down and the other up."
R.H. Thach and Cabaniss & Bowie, all of Birmingham, for appellant.
Longshore, Koenig & Longshore, of Columbiana, for appellee.
It is most earnestly insisted by counsel for appellant that, the judgment appealed from should be reversed for the refusal of the court to grant a new trial on the ground that the verdict of the jury...
To continue reading
Request your trial