Gorman v. Des Moines Brick Manuf'g Co.

• Decision Date: 16 October 1896
• Parties: GORMAN v. DES MOINES BRICK MANUF'G CO.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

99 Iowa 257

68 N.W. 674

GORMAN

v.DES MOINES BRICK MANUF'G CO.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 16, 1896.

Appeal from district court, Polk county; W. F. Conrad, Judge.

Action at law to recover damages for a personal injury sustained by plaintiff while in defendant's employ as a repairer of machinery. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence, the court directed a verdict for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.J. D. Laws and Carr & Parker, for appellant.

Cummins & Wright, for appellee.

DEEMER, J.

The defendant is a manufacturer of brick, and, in the prosecution of its business, uses certain machinery, denominated a “crusher,” “pug mill,” and “molder.” The crusher is located below the pug mill, and so arranged that the earth, when pulverized by the crusher, is carried up and dumped into the box of the pug mill, where it is tempered and mixed, and, when of the proper consistency, it is carried into the molder. These various machines are not geared so as to move together, but each in its operation is independent of the other. The pug mill is constructed with a horizontal shaft passing through the same, at one end of which is a large cogwheel. Against this cogwheel a smaller one is constructed, which is attached to a smaller horizontal shaft running parallel with the first, upon which was a small clutch pulley, over which ran a belt connected with the engine. The power from the engine was thus conducted, through means of the belt, clutch pulley, horizontal shaft, and cogwheels, to the machinery which tempered and mixed the clay. At the time he received the injuries complained of, plaintiff was employed by the defendant to look after its machinery, to oil the same, repair breakage, and to keep the appliances in running order. He alleges that the machinery and appliances were improperly, negligently, and carelessly constructed, in this: that the horizontal shaft to which was attached the clutch pulley was so constructed that it rested upon two bearings, one on either side of the cogwheel, and each distant therefrom about eight inches; that, between the bearing on the side of the cogwheel and the pulley, the shaft extended a distance of about eight feet, and that the reasonably safe and proper construction of the machinery required that a bearing be constructed at or near the place where the pulley clutched the shaft; but that defendant negligently and carelessly refused to construct a bearing at that point, and, as a result, the shaft constantly and violently vibrated when the machinery was in motion, producing a great amount of friction upon the bearings and boxes near the cogwheel, causing the same to become heated at times; that the defendant was also negligent in failing to place any guards around or covering over the cogwheels. Plaintiff further alleges that in the month of November, 1893, while engaged in the performance of his duty, he discovered that the boxing referred to had become greatly heated, so much so as to require prompt attention, and that he proceeded to reduce the same by loosening the burs of the bearings so as to give the shaft more play; that, while attempting to loosen the burr, his wrench slipped off the nut, and his right hand was caught in the cogwheels, and so severely injured that amputation became necessary; that he was free from negligence on his part; and that the accident was wholly due to the negligence and carelessness of the defendant. Plaintiff further states that the reason why he did not stop the machine before attempting to loosen the nut was because he was directed by his employers to keep the machinery in constant operation, and not to stop the same for repairs until 6 o'clock p. m., as they were behind with their orders, and desired to keep the factory running to its full capacity. Plaintiff also states that he knew the condition of the shaft and machinery before he received his accident, but that he had repeatedly called defendant's attention to the defects, and was promised by the superintendent that they should be remedied. The defendant answered, denying the allegations of the petition, and pleaded a settlement with the plaintiff. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence, defendant filed a motion for a verdict, based upon the grounds (1) that the alleged negligence was not the approximate cause of the injury; (2) that plaintiff assumed all risks incident to work about the machinery, because he knew of its alleged defects; (3) that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence; and (4) that there is no evidence that any one ordered or authorized plaintiff to unscrew the nuts while the machinery was in motion, and that plaintiff assumed all danger resulting from his work. The appeal is from the rulings of the court sustaining this motion.

It is conceded by counsel for appellee that the machinery was constructed as alleged by plaintiff in his petition; that the box became heated as charged; that plaintiff's hand slipped into the cogwheels in an attempt to unscrew the nuts at the shaft bearing; and that he received the injuries of which he complains. They deny, however, that the plaintiff was ordered not to stop the machine, and deny that he was directed to do the work in the manner attempted. And they further say that, if it be found that he was directed to do the work in the manner he did, yet he cannot recover, because the danger was so imminent and manifest as to prevent a reasonably prudent man from undertaking such work. The evidence...