H.D. Williams Cooperage Co. v. Headrick

• Decision Date: 19 March 1908
• Docket Number: 2,676.
• Citation: 159 F. 680
• Parties: H. D. WILLIAMS COOPERAGE CO. v. HEADRICK.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

159 F. 680

H. D. WILLIAMS COOPERAGE CO. v. HEADRICK.

No. 2,676.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

March 19, 1908

Where the day before an accident, a servant complained of the danger from defective condition of the machinery and from exposed saws, and the master promised to make the saws safe and make other changes, and on the next day the foot of the servant was cut by a saw, and he might have gone around with comparative safety by traveling about eight feet farther, he was guilty of contributory negligence.

Syllabus by the Court.

A servant had been at work tending an equalizer in a temporary stave mill, standing about 3 feet in front of it, for about a month. Beneath the two saws were holes in the ground, which held about two bushels each, made to receive the sawdust and blocks which fell from the saws. This was the usual way in which such mills and equalizers were constructed. It was the duty of another servant to clean these holes out when they became filled; but he neglected his duty, and they were frequently so full that the exact location of their edges was concealed by the sawdust and blocks, and this was their condition at the time of the accident. The day before the accident the servant complained of the danger from this condition and from the exposed saws, and the master promised to keep the holes cleaned out and to make the saws safe. On the next day, upon a signal to go to the barrel saw, the servant undertook to pass between a bench, which was 18 inches from the edge of one of the holes and 30 inches from one of the equalizer saws, and that saw, stepped into one of the holes and the saw cut his foot. He might have gone around the bench away from the holes with comparative safety by traveling about 8 feet farther.

Held the servant was guilty of contributory negligence that was fatal to his suit.

The master is not required to supply or use the best, newest, or safest places, appliances, or methods of operation to secure the safety of his servants.

The limit of his duty is to exercise ordinary care to supply reasonably safe places, appliances, and methods.

The test of the full discharge of this duty is ordinary care to supply such places, appliances, and methods as persons of ordinary intelligence and prudence commonly furnish in like circumstances.

The promise of a master, upon complaint by the servant of defects or risks in places, appliances, or methods, to remove them or to provide safeguards against them, does not relieve the servant of his duty to exercise ordinary care to protect himself against them meanwhile.

Ben F. Williamson, Thomas J. Gaughan, and John T. Sifford, for plaintiff in error.

W. A. Oldfield and Charles F. Cole, for defendant in error.

Before SANBORN and ADAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILIPS, District Judge.

SANBORN Circuit Judge.

This was an action for damages for a personal injury. The negligence charged was the failure to box equalizer saws in a stave mill and to keep the holes beneath them free from sawdust and blocks. The defenses were a denial of the defendant's negligence, and an assumption of the risks and contributory negligence by the plaintiff. The plaintiff a man about 35 years of age, was tending equalizer saws for the defendant in a temporary stave mill which had been set up in the country in the state of Arkansas, to operate from 40 to 60 days. One of these saws was fastened upon each end of a driven shaft, which was supported by timber about 10 inches above the ground. The saws were about 28 inches in diameter, and a hole had been dug under each, about 2 feet in depth and capable of holding about two bushels, for the purpose of receiving the sawdust and the ends of the blocks which fell from the saws. It was the duty of one Arnold, a servant of the defendant, to clean these holes out as often as they filled; but at the time of the injury they had become full, and the sawdust was scattered over them and over the adjoining ground, so that the exact location of their edges was not visible. It was the duty of the plaintiff to stand about 3 feet in front of these saws, take the bolts of timber as they came from the saws, place them on a bench or table at his side, which was about 12 feet long and 6 inches higher at the end near to the equalizer than it was at the far end, so that by giving the bolts a push he could send them along upon the bench to a point where the side sawyer could take them and put them upon the carriage of the barrel or drum saw. The foot of the bench near the equalizer was about 18 inches from the nearer edge of the hole beneath the nearer one of the equalizer saws and about 30 inches from that saw. The barrel saw was on the side of the bench. One of the duties of the plaintiff had been to leave his station at irregular intervals on a signal from the foreman, to go to the barrel saw and by pressing a timber against it to steady it. There were two ways for him to reach the place where he discharged the latter duty. One was to go around the bench, and the other was to go between the bench and the hole beneath the equalizer. The distance by the former route was about 14 feet and by the latter route about 6 feet. By the former route he went away from the equalizer saws and the holes beneath them, but passed between the far end of the bench and the barrel saw, which was about 18 inches distant from it; but there was no evidence that there was any danger and there was positive evidence that there was no danger in pursuing this way. By the latter route he passed between the end of the bench and the hole beneath the equalizer saw, the edge of which was invisible. The plaintiff thought he received a signal from the foreman to steady the barrel saw. He grasped the near end of the bench and started between it and the equalizer, along the 18 inches of ground between...