Cunningham v. Bath Iron Works

• Decision Date: 27 February 1899
• Parties: CUNNINGHAM v. BATH IRON WORKS.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

43 A. 106

92 Me. 501

CUNNINGHAM

v. BATH IRON WORKS.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Feb. 27, 1899.

(Official.)

Exceptions from supreme judicial court, Sagadahoc county.

Action by Angie Cunningham against the Bath Iron Works. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant excepts and moves for a new trial. Motion sustained, and verdict set aside.

This was an action of tort, brought by the mother, as administratrix of the estate, of Mark W. Cunningham, to recover damages for injuries sustained by her son while in the employ of the defendant, and as a result of which he died on the 6th day of June, 1896. The plea was the general issue. The case was tried to a Jury at the December term, 1897, of this court, in Sagadahoc county, and a verdict returned for the plaintiff in the sum of $2,162.62.

The alleged acts of negligence on the part of the defendant are stated in the declaration as follows:

"In a plea of the case, for that on the sixth day of June, 1896, the said defendant was a corporation engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel products in various forms at said Bath, and in the prosecution of said business it possessed and operated a large amount of machinery, and especially a certain machine for the purpose of cutting its iron and steel into required lengths, which machine was known as an 'angle-iron machine,' and was equipped with divers wheels, belts, pulleys, knives, and cog gear for the purpose aforesaid; that in its said business the defendant employed a large number of servants, including the plaintiff's intestate, and was bound by law to use all diligence to provide for each of them a safe place in which to work, and reasonably safe machinery and gears in connection with which to work, and to supply and maintain all proper guards to insure the reasonable safety of its said workmen, and especially of the plaintiff's intestate; that on said sixth day of June, 1896, the plaintiff's intestate was a minor of the age of seventeen years, and was then in the employ of said defendant, and as a part of his duties in said employment was set to work as assistant upon said angle-iron machine; but that, in disregard of the defendant's duties aforesaid, said machine was so dangerously and negligently constructed with reference to its wheels and gears that any one coming in contact with the same was exposed to great and unnecessary danger of limb and life; that said machine and its dangerous wheels and cog gears aforesaid were negligently left by the defendant wholly unguarded; and that, in addition, the floor about said machine and where the plaintiff's intestate was obliged to work in connection with said machine was negligently left obstructed by scraps and jagged pieces of Iron and steel which the workman must necessarily pass over, and by reason of which he was in constant danger of falling upon said unguarded gears; and that the plaintiff's intestate, being ignorant of the dangers aforesaid, and being of tender years and inexperienced in machinery, was on the day aforesaid set to work upon said dangerous and unguarded machine without any proper warning or instructions; in consequence whereof, on the day aforesaid, said plaintiff's intestate, while engaged in the performance of his work in connection with said machine, and while in the exercise of due care himself in all respects, by reason wholly of the defendant's negligence in the construction and operation of said machine in the particulars above described, tripped upon said jagged pieces of iron and steel, and was thrown against said unguarded gears, and by them drawn into said machinery in such a way that both his arms were mangled, crushed, and cut off, and his skull cracked; that by reason thereof said plaintiff's intestate suffered great agony of mind and body, was obliged to submit to the amputation of both his arms in the effort to save his life, and, after surviving for many hours in great agony and being subjected to great expense for medical attendance and medicines, finally died; all of which was without fault on his part, and by reason wholly of the defendant's negligence as aforesaid, to the damage of the said plaintiff (as she saith) the sum of ten thousand dollars," etc.

The disposition of the case by the court upon the motion renders a report of the exceptions taken to the admission of testimony unnecessary.

Argued before PETERS, C. J., and EMERY, HASKELL, WHITEHOUSE, STROUT, and SAVAGE, JJ.

O. D. Baker and P. L Staples, for plaintiff.

L. C. Cornish and J. M. Trott, for defendant.

WHITEHOUSE, J. In this action the plaintiff, as administratrix on the estate of her son, seeks to recover damages for injuries sustained by the intestate on the 6th day of June, 1896, while in the employment of the defendant, resulting in his death on the same day.

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $2,162.62, and the case comes to the law court on motion and exceptions by the defendant.

The defendant was engaged in building iron vessels, and, for the purpose of cutting off pieces of angle iron to be used in their construction, a powerful machine was employed, known as the "angle-iron shears." This machine was located in the southwest corner of a large building called the "plate shop," one side of the machine being coincident with the exterior wall of the building. It was provided with two knives, one on either side, which could be used together or independently, each being operated by its own lever, by which the "clutch" could be thrown in or out at pleasure. For the purpose of giving more effective operation to the machine, a heavy fly wheel was hung upon a shaft which transmitted the power to the knives by means of cogwheels. The larger wheel was three feet in diameter, the bottom of it being 2 feet 10 inches from the floor, and its gear or connection with the smaller wheel was 5 feet 4 inches from the floor. The intestate is described as of about the average height. The large wheel made 10 revolutions and the small one 34 revolutions per minute. Being in the corner of the building, these wheels on the front side were in plain view from all parts of the shop. On this side, the cogs turned inward and were not provided with any shield or guard. On the back side, the wheels were in a comparatively dark place within three or four feet of the wall, and there the cogs turned outward. These cogwheels were in constant motion during the working hours of the day; but the knives were only operated when the cutting of the angle iron was actually required, and this might be once or many times each day.

This machine was operated by one of the fitters, whose duty it was to adjust the angle-iron fittings in their proper places in the vessel; and the mechanism of the gearing and levers was so arranged that the operator stood outside of the building, while the pieces of angle iron, as they were cut from long bars, fell to the floor on the inside through a slot or trough inclined downward and forward.

At the time of the accident in question, the intestate had been employed one month and one day in the capacity of helper or second hand to one of the fitters. It was the duty of the helper, as the word implies, to accompany the fitter in his work, look after his tools, and otherwise aid him in a general way. It was one of his duties to pick up the pieces of angle iron as they fell to the floor when cut by the fitter, and to carry them to any point desired; but he had no duty to perform in direct connection with the operation of the machine, and, in removing the pieces of iron from the floor, he was not required to come within three feet of the cogwheels on the inward-turning side.

About 8 o'clock on the morning of the accident, Mr. Tuck, one of the fitters, took his position on the outside of the building and set in motion the knife on the front side for the purpose of cutting some angle iron. The intestate was present in his capacity of helper, and, as the cutting proceeded, he passed around the end of the machine, picked up the pieces of iron as they fell, and carried them to the base of a column about six feet distant. He had removed three pieces and returned to pick up the fourth. In doing so, he had to pass behind the side of the machine, and was momentarily out of the view of Mr. Tuck, who was looking down at his work on the outside. But he heard an outcry from the boy, and, looking up, saw him with his arms in the gears. He had no other knowledge of the manner or the cause of the accident and there was no other direct evidence in the case in relation to it.

It was not in controversy that the angle-iron machine itself was of a standard pattern and in general use in iron-working establishments like that of the defendant throughout the country. It was not claimed on the part of the plaintiff that the machine was improperly constructed or was in any respect defective or out of repair. But it was contended that there was actionable negligence on the part of the defendant in three particulars: First in allowing the cogwheels in which the intestate was injured to remain unguarded and unprovided with a hood or shield of any kind to prevent accident and injury; second, in allowing the basal flange of the machine and the bolt and nut which secured it to the floor to project above the level of the floor, and in permitting the waste scraps of iron to accumulate on the floor at points near which the intestate was required to go in picking up the angle iron; and, third, in omitting to give the intestate appropriate and sufficient instruction and warning in regard to the perils of the revolving cogwheels on their in-rolling side.

On the part of the defendant, it is strenuously and confidently urged that the evidence utterly fails to establish either the defendant's negligence, on the one hand, or the intestate's due care and want of appreciation of the risk, on the other.

The principles of law applicable to these several contentions and to the...