Hocking v. Windsor Spring Co.

• Decision Date: 03 October 1905
• Citation: 125 Wis. 575,104 N.W. 705
• Parties: HOCKING v. WINDSOR SPRING CO.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

125 Wis. 575

104 N.W. 705

HOCKING

v.WINDSOR SPRING CO.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Oct. 3, 1905.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Kenosha County; E. B. Belden, Judge.

Action by William E. Hocking against the Windsor Spring Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

This is an action to recover damages for loss of an eye and other incidental personal injuries sustained by plaintiff while an employé of defendant. The negligence charged in the complaint is, in effect, that the machine furnished plaintiff in doing his work was not reasonably safe, in that the knife was allowed to become loose in its socket, and the set screw used for holding the same was allowed to become thread-worn and loose, not holding the knife true and firm in its proper place and position, and in allowing it to turn and strike the die on the side of the slot or hole; negligence in not setting the dies properly or squarely under the knife, but too close to one side, thereby causing the knife to loosen, turn, and strike the side of the die; negligence in the failure to instruct plaintiff in the operation of the machine, or the dangers thereof, or to warn him of the danger of splinters of steel flying, if the knife struck the side of the die; negligence in failing to inspect the machine with sufficient frequency; and negligence in failing to employ a competent mechanic to set and adjust said die or knife, and in employing an incompetent man, who negligently set the knife and die in an unsafe and improper manner. Defendant answered, denying the negligence alleged, and charged contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. On the trial the evidence offered by the plaintiff tended to show that at the time of the injury, September 14, 1901, plaintiff was engaged in defendant's factory in the operation of a machine known as a “punch press” or “punch machine,” and in the cutting of bed spring slats therewith. This machine consisted in part of a die, composed of two parts, made of hard tool steel, tempered, having a slot or hole in the center thereof of the shape or form desired to give the ends of the slats--the die being so set or fastened in its bed that into such slot or hole a close-fitting hard steel punch or knife is caused to descend in the operation of the machine; the die about the hole being sharp for the purpose of cutting metal placed over the hole when the knife or punch descended into it. The punch or knife is held in position in a socket in the head of the machine by a set screw, and is made to fit closely into the hole or slot in the die, and, being of the same size and shape, must be adjusted so as to descend and fit accurately into the slot. If the die and knife are not properly set, it will throw splinters, and is liable to break the die bed or loosen the screws. The imperfect setting leaves a burr on the stock, which has a tendency to dull the punch, and break the die and punch, and is liable to turn the die around. The continual pounding will loosen the whole machine, and something will have to break. The bed slats manufactured by said machine are cut and the ends trimmed by placing them over the slot, and causing the punch or knife to descend into said slot by means of the machinery and power connected with the punch; the sharp edges of the die cutting the slats. In operating the machine, it is necessary to keep the punch and die constantly oiled, and for this purpose the operator frequently oils the same while the machine is in motion, “in order to throw oil all over the punch and die.” At the time of the injury plaintiff was oiling the machine, and the punch or knife struck the die in such manner as to break off from the edge thereof a small splinter of steel, which was thrown with great force into plaintiff's eye, causing the injury complained of. Plaintiff, when injured, was 21 years of age, a painter by trade, and had had no experience in the kind of work he was doing, except his experience while at defendant's factory. He ran a spring machine for defendant when first employed, about two years before the injury. The last time before the injury he worked on a crimper for two or three months, and the last week constantly on the machine in question, and occasionally during the preceding two or three months. He could not tell exactly how long he worked on the machine, maybe two or three weeks. He did not know, and had never been told, that splinters of steel could or might be broken off and thrown by the machine, and received no instructions in regard to the running of the machine, or warning as to the possibility of splinters of steel being thrown from the die in case the punch should strike it. He had nothing to do with the setting of the die, had never set the machine, and had been instructed not to set it. He had no knowledge or information that the die was improperly set. About two days before the injury he discovered that the screw holding the punch or knife was loose, and tightened it with his fingers. He informed the foreman of the fact, who tightened the screw, and said it was all right, and directed plaintiff to go ahead and run the machine. The screw afterwards became loose, and plaintiff tightened it twice. Before the injury he also noticed that the machine was “chucking,” but did not know at that time what it was, any more than it was a “chuck.” About an hour before the injury he again complained to the foreman that the screw was “threadworn or loose,” that the machine was not cutting good, it did not leave a nice, clean cut, but left a burr, and he knew the screw ought to be tight. The foreman tightened the screw,...