Fitzgerald v. Langley Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 18 April 1906
• Citation: 54 S.E. 373,74 S.C. 232
• Parties: FITZGERALD v. LANGLEY MFG. CO.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

54 S.E. 373

74 S.C. 232

FITZGERALD v. LANGLEY MFG. CO.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

April 18, 1906

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Aiken County; J. E McDonald, Judge.

Action by T. E. Fitzgerald against the Langley Manufacturing Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Croft & Salley and H. C. Hammond, for appellant. Hendersons, for respondent.

JONES J.

The plaintiff, a machinist in the employ of the defendant company, was injured while operating an iron planer so as to require amputation of the left hand, and brought this action for damages, which resulted in a verdict and judgment for defendant. The manner of the injury and the failure of duty on the part of the defendant is thus alleged in the complaint: "On April 4, 1903, while engaged in the line of his duty planing down a piece of iron to be used on a beader cover in defendant's mill, it became necessary for him to bolt said piece of iron tightly to the bed of the planer by screwing down a clamp bolt attached to the planer for that purpose. And the plaintiff further alleges in order to accomplish fastening said piece of iron securely, he placed a wrench used for that purpose upon the clamp bolt and proceeded to screw down said bolt, and while in this position with his left hand upon said wrench, because of the negligence and carelessness of the defendant and its servants, in failing to repair and properly construct said planer and the appliances therewith connected, and to keep the same in a safe condition for its employés as was its duty to do, the countershaft which derived the power to run said planer from the main mill shafting, by means of belting became out of alignment with the said mill shafting and while the plaintiff was in the position above described, without any fault on his part, and without his knowledge and without warning, because of the negligence and carlessness of the defendant aforesaid, the belt running from the mill shafting to the loose pulley on the countershaft automatically shifted on to the fixed pulley thereon, thereby starting the planer in motion, causing the bed of the same to move forward quickly and catch the wrist of the plaintiff's left arm between the nut on the clamp bolt and the cross-beam on the planer and to crush and lacerate his arm to such an extent and manner as to cause a total loss of his left hand." It will be observed that the particular act of negligence alleged was the failure of the defendant to have the countershaft properly aligned with the main shaft, thereby causing the belt to shift automatically from the loose pulley to the tight pulley on the countershaft and so put the machine in motion. This prepares us to consider plaintiff's fifth exception, as follows:

1. "Because his honor erred in refusing to allow the plaintiff to answer the questions hereinafter complained of, as follows: 'Q. Have you ever worked in any other mill besides the Langley Mill? A. Yes, in the Sibley Mills, King Mill, Enterprise Mill, Georgia Iron Works. Q. Have you seen these shifting rods used in these mills for shifting a belt from the loose to a tight pulley and vice versa?' It is submitted that

...