Higgins Mfg. Co. v. Griesinger's Adm'r

• Decision Date: 18 October 1911
• Citation: 139 S.W. 1059,145 Ky. 1
• Parties: HIGGINS MFG CO. v. GRIESINGER'S ADM'R.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

139 S.W. 1059

145 Ky. 1

HIGGINS MFG CO. v. GRIESINGER'S ADM'R.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

October 18, 1911

Appeal from Circuit Court, Campbell County.

Action by Albert Griesinger's Administrator against the Higgins Manufacturing Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Faber &amp Warren, for appellant.

Phil J Ryan and Thos. L. Michie, for appellee.

HOBSON C.J.

Albert Griesinger, who was between 14 and 15 years old, was killed in the factory of the Higgins Manufacturing Company, on October 2, 1905, and this action was brought by his administrator to recover for his death. On a trial of the case before a jury, on January 13, 1911, there was a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $1,200. The defendant appeals.

The boy worked in the basement, at a machine used for drilling nuts which was operated by a belt from shifting which stood about five feet six inches from the floor. The boy was about four feet six inches high. He got upon a barrel to put the belt on a pulley to operate his machine, when they were starting up in the morning; the establishment having been shut down for about two weeks. While he was doing this, an unguarded set screw in the shifting caught in his clothes, and he was thus whirled around with the shifting until he was killed. The proof for the boy was to the effect that the boss told him to go to work at the machine. The belt was off, and had to be put on before he could go to work, and so the first thing he did was to get on a barrel and try to put the belt on. It had been usual for him to put the belt on, and other employés who worked on the same and similar machines, who were boys like him, put the belts on liability. Such was the proof for the plaintiff. On the other hand, the proof for the defendant was to the effect that the boy had been charged not to put on the belt, and had been told to call on a certain man in the shop to put it on for him. The court gave the jury these two instructions:

"(1) The jury are instructed that if they believe from the evidence that plaintiff's intestate, Albert Griesinger, was fatally injured on the 2nd day of October, 1905, while in the employment of defendant company, and that under such employment it was part of his duties to place the belt on the pulley, as described in the evidence, and that, on the shifting to which the said pulley was attached, there was a set screw projecting, and by defendant, its officers, or agents, suffered to remain uncovered and unguarded, rendering it dangerous to place said belt on said pulley,

...