Hazen v. W. Superior Lumber Co.
| Decision Date | 22 October 1895 |
| Citation | 64 N.W. 857,91 Wis. 208 |
| Parties | HAZEN v. WEST SUPERIOR LUMBER CO. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from superior court, Douglas county; Charles Smith, Judge.
Action by Samuel Hazen, Jr., against the West Superior Lumber Company. A demurrer to the complaint was overruled, and defendant appeals. Reversed.
This action was brought to recover against the defendant damages for injuries to plaintiff received by him while in its employ, and by reason of its alleged negligence. The complaint alleges, in substance: The hiring of plaintiff by defendant to work for it in its mill, and that the next morning he was set to work at a machine in the mill for cutting off the ends of lath, consisting of a framework, resting on the floor of the mill, three or four feet high. That two circular saws projected from and beyond the upper part or horizontal table or surface, and that the portions so projecting were not in any way inclosed or covered, so as to protect any person from injury who might accidentally fall against or come in contact with them; but in front of said saws, some boards, attached at the upper end to a framework, came down, and concealed all but a small portion of the saws, but they were so loosely fastened at the upper end that they furnished no protection to a person falling against the saws, and, being on the front or outward side of the machine from which it was operated, no person could observe or discover that the saws were, in fact, unguarded, and that the boards furnished no protection, unless a particular examination were made. That the plaintiff had never worked about such a machine, and was wholly ignorant of its operation. That the defendant's foreman promised to show him how to manage and operate it, and how to perform the work about it. That the plaintiff did not make any examination of the machine, owing to his ignorance and inexperience in such business, but that he was set to work about it, and to operate it, and commenced so to do, although said foreman had wholly neglected and failed to instruct him in the premises, and he had not been warned or cautioned upon the dangers connected with such work. That soon afterwards, and while engaged in placing lath in proper position upon the machine, “the plaintiff accidentally, and without fault or negligence on his part, slipped, and fell against the projecting parts of said saws,” whereby his forearm was so much torn, mangled, and mutilated by the saws that it had to be and was amputated between the wrist and elbow, causing him great pain, permanent injury, etc. It was alleged that at the expense of 25 cents and the labor of a man for half an hour the projecting portions of said saws could have been securely inclosed and covered, so as to have prevented said, or any such, injury, without impairing the efficiency or capacity of the machine; but of this plaintiff was then ignorant, by reason of his inexperience, otherwise he would have properly inclosed and covered the saws. That at the time said machine was, and for a long time had been, unsafe, defective, and dangerous in the particulars thus stated, and the defendant wrongfully, willfully, and negligently kept the same in such condition. That it had negligently and unnecessarily suffered sawdust and refuse matter, in considerable quantities, to accumulate on the floor of the mill about the machine, so that the footing of any person operating it had become unsafe, insecure, and precarious, particularly so to a person unaccustomed to operate and attend it, and greatly increased his liability to slip and stumble, of all of which plaintiff was then ignorant, and he had not been warned and cautioned against such increased danger, and did not appreciate the same because of his inexperience. That, although unknown to the plaintiff, there was a good level floor under such accumulation of sawdust, etc., and a person operating the machine could prevent such accumulation to such an extent as to make his footing unsafe or dangerous, without hindrance to its operation; but he had not been so informed, or that such accumulation was unnecessary, or he would have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sladky v. Marinette Lumber Co.
...to obvious defects or dangers, although they existed in consequence of the negligence or default of the employer.” Hazen v. Lumber Co., 91 Wis. 208, 64 N. W. 857;Jones v. Sutherland, 91 Wis. 587, 65 N. W. 496;Erdman v. Steel Co., 95 Wis. 6, 11, 69 N. W. 993;Larson v. McClure, 95 Wis. 533, 7......
-
Campshure v. Standard Mfg. Co.
...v. Kraus-Merkel Co., 97 Wis. 279, 72 N. W. 735, in which this was done under somewhat similar circumstances, also Hazen v. West S. L. Co., 91 Wis. 208, 64 N. W. 857,Conroy v. Ry. Co., 96 Wis. 243, 70 N. W. 486, 38 L. R. A. 419,Wanzer v. Chippewa V. E. R. Co., 108 Wis. 319, 84 N. W. 423, and......
-
Colson v. Rule
...it is spoken of as 'a form of contributory negligence,' and also as 'a specific phase of contributory negligence'; Hazen v. West Superior L. Co., 91 Wis. 208, 64 N.W. 857, where it is described as 'a species of contributory negligence,' 'equivalent in legal effect to contributory negligence......
-
Stark v. Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co.
...were the following: Dorsey v. Phillips, etc., Co., 42 Wis. 583;Olson v. Doherty L. Co., 102 Wis. 264, 78 N. W. 572;Hazen v. West Sup. L. Co., 91 Wis. 208, 64 N. W. 857;Dugal v. Chippewa Falls, 101 Wis. 533, 77 N. W. 878;Campshure v. Standard, etc., Co., 137 Wis. 155, 118 N. W. 633;Leque v. ......