Covington v. Smith Furniture Co.
| Decision Date | 16 May 1905 |
| Citation | 50 S.E. 761,138 N.C. 374 |
| Parties | COVINGTON v. SMITH FURNITURE CO. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Guilford County; Peebles, Judge.
Action by D. A. Covington against the Smith Furniture Company. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
In an action for injuries to a servant injured by his hand coming in contact with the knives of a machine which he was operating, evidence considered, and held to show that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.
Action to recover damages for injuries sustained by plaintiff while working in defendant's employment. Plaintiff alleged that he was injured in operating a jointer; that he began work in July, and continued till September, 1903; that he had been engaged at work on similar machines in other factories some five or six years; that he was an experienced man in such employment; that at the time he was injured he was running two pieces of dry oak timber about 15 inches long and 7 inches wide over the jointer; that the piece of timber resting under his hand had a knot in it, was hard and curly where knives struck it about one inch at the end of the board; that the jointer, together with other machines, was operated by the steam engine; that the speed of the machine upon which plaintiff was at work was affected when the heavy planer near to it was attached; that lumber is worked through the machine, the operator putting his hand on top of it. The knives struck the corner, and knocked it out from under plaintiff's hand. The speed of the machine was about 8,000 revolutions of the roller on which the knives were set per minute. When plaintiff was hurt another planer was put in operation by the operator throwing the belt on it and starting it to running. This reduced the speed of the machine, and caused it to throw the piece of timber back knocking it out of plaintiff's hand, and bringing his hand in contact with the knives. Plaintiff testified that the engine had not sufficient power to run all of the machines in the shop; that when the heavy planer was attached it reduced the speed of the machine operated by him for as much as five minutes, until the engine could reassert itself; that just before he put the board on the machine he saw them couple up with the planing machine; that was just before he started the board on it; that he had seen them do that before, and knew that the speed of this machine would slacken for a while that he knew it made it more dangerous; that he had not realized how dangerous it was; that he had boards to jump out before when the blades of the knives hit a knot or hard place in the board, and when the board was pushed over while the speed of the engine was checked the board would kick; that he said the machine slackened before putting the board on it and he had been cautioned about the careless manner in which he was running the timber across the machine; that he knew the engine was insufficient to run all of the machines in the shop about two months before the accident. J. B. Hassell witness for plaintiff, testified that he was running the planer, and threw the belt on his planer, and started it in motion while the plaintiff was working at his jointer; that he had observed that this machinery would slow down when his was attached; and in a short time after throwing the belt on the plaintiff came to him with his hand injured; that he examined the piece of wood the plaintiff was working, and it looked as if it had started over the knives before the jointer slowed up; that the engine was an 80 horse power, and not in good order, and should have been 100 horse power to run all the machinery in the factory; that throwing the planer on would slacken the speed of the engine. It would catch up its speed after a while. Most of them in...
To continue reading
Request your trial