George v. St. Louis Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 22 December 1900
• Citation: 159 Mo. 333,59 S.W. 1097
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Parties: GEORGE v. ST. LOUIS MFG. CO.

59 S.W. 1097

159 Mo. 333

GEORGE v. ST. LOUIS MFG. CO.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

December 22, 1900.

MASTER AND SERVANT — PLANING MACHINE — INJURIES — CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE — LIABILITY OF EMPLOYER.

Where the planing machine at which plaintiff worked was reasonably safe for the purposes for which it was used, and in perfect running order, and plaintiff was familiar with its operation and construction, and his injuries were sustained by unnecessarily stooping over an arm and reaching under the table to remove shavings, he cannot recover for the injury.

Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; Jacob Klein, Judge.

Action by Gottfried George against the St. Louis Manufacturing Company. Plaintiff took a nonsuit, with leave. From an order refusing to set aside the nonsuit, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Frederick A. Wind, for appellant. Percy Werner, for respondent.

BRACE, P. J.

This is an action for damages for personal injuries, in which, at the close of the plaintiff's evidence, the court sustained a demurrer to the evidence. The plaintiff took a nonsuit, with leave, and, the court refusing to set the same aside, the plaintiff appeals. The only testimony in behalf of the plaintiff was his own evidence, from which it appears: That he was injured on the 11th day of May, 1897. That he was then aged about 47 years, sound in mind and body, and in possession of all his faculties. That he was then, as he had been, off and on, for several years previous, in the employ of the defendant as a common laborer. That the employment in which he was engaged at the time of the injury was that of assistant to the operator of a planing machine in defendant's planing mill. This machine planed the two sides of a board at the same time, as it passed through, by means of two sets of knives revolving rapidly, one above and the other below the board. The operator stood at the front of the machine and fed it, while the assistant stood at the rear and carried off the planed boards. The rear end of the machine was guarded by a couple of arms which projected out beyond the machine about 3 feet, between the further ends of which was fixed a roller, over which the boards passed into the hands of the assistant. The top of the planer or table and this roller were about 3 feet from the floor. The shavings from the upper set of knives were carried off by means of a hood and suction pipes, and from the lower set by means of an opening about 18 inches square cut in the floor under those knives, into which they fell. The upper knives were covered by the movable top of the table, which was removed daily for the purpose of sharpening both sets of knives. The plaintiff was injured by the lower set of knives. The shafts on which these knives were set projected out on the side of the machine 5 or 6 inches, to the outer end of which was attached the pulley around which the belt ran that revolved the knives. The knives were about 4 inches in width, were set back of the rear edge of the table 2½ inches, and extended below the frame of the table, so as to be visible from the rear end of the machine, where the plaintiff received the boards. The plaintiff had assisted at this machine on various occasions prior to the accident; often assisted in removing the top for the purpose of enabling the operator to sharpen the knives, when they, their arrangement and location, became visible. In fact, his evidence tends not only to show that he had ample opportunity of knowing all about this machine and the operation of its knives, but that he did in fact know all about it, except, perhaps, the exact distance at which the lower knives revolved, from the...