Hoffman v. American Foundry Co.

• Decision Date: 13 December 1897
• Citation: 18 Wash. 287,51 P. 385
• Parties: HOFFMAN v. AMERICAN FOUNDRY CO.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

51 P. 385

18 Wash. 287

HOFFMAN v. AMERICAN FOUNDRY CO.

Supreme Court of Washington

December 13, 1897

Appeal from superior court, Pierce county; J. A. Williamson, Judge.

Action by Charles A. Hoffman against the American Foundry Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed.

Crowley & Grosscup and P. C. Sullivan, for appellant.

George W. Fogg, for respondent.

GORDON, J.

This action was brought to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff while employed as a workman in defendant's foundry. At the time of the injury respondent was engaged in operating machinery for breaking old iron car wheels. A portion of the machinery, consisting of a shaft, was run by a belt about 30 feet in length passing over the outside of a pulley. This shaft and pulley ran very rapidly, making about 500 revolutions per minute. It was supported by two iron brackets about 8 feet apart attached to the wall. Two iron collars and set screws were placed on the shaft, inside the bracket, for the purpose of preventing lateral movement of the shaft. These collars were fastened by means of steel set screws (one on each collar) the heads of which projected five-eighths of an inch. On the 21st of July, 1896, while the machinery was in motion, this belt slipped off the right end of the pulley, and fell between the pulley and the right-hand bracket. The pulley was about 10 feet from the floor. Respondent ascended a ladder, took hold of the belt about a foot below the shaft, and, in attempting to lift it upon the pulley, the belt was caught between the pulley and the bracket on the head of the set screw, and wound about the shaft and the left arm of respondent, throwing him violently to the floor; resulting in the loss of the arm, and in other injuries. The negligence alleged in the complaint may be said to be the use of defective machinery, and the negligent adjustment thereof. The plaintiff had been at work in the same capacity for the defendant about four months, in all, prior to the time of the accident. The answer alleges that the injuries were occasioned solely by the carelessness and contributory negligence of the plaintiff in handling and managing the machinery; that the machinery itself and appliances were exposed and visible to plaintiff, and safe for the purposes intended; that plaintiff had ample opportunity to examine the same, to understand the workings thereof, and undertook the risk in connection therewith, as a part of his employment. The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $4,000, from which the defendant has appealed.

The gist of the action is negligence, and, to entitle respondent to a recovery, negligence must be shown. Respondent contends that by placing the collar and set screw inside, instead of outside, the bracket supporting the shaft, and failing to countersink the set screw, the construction was faulty, and the machine rendered highly dangerous. But the injury resulted, not from any defect in the machinery, but from the attempt to replace the belt while the shaft was revolving with great rapidity, and it is not contended that the belt left the pulley because of any defect, either of the pulley or belt. There was evidence tending to show that the method adopted by respondent to replace the belt would have been safe enough, had there been nothing under the belt between the bracket and the end of the pulley but the smooth shaft but it was rendered extremely dangerous and perilous by reason of the collar and projecting set screw, and the only safe and proper course to pursue in order to replace the belt, under the circumstances, would have been to notify the engineer to stop or slow down the engine. It was not claimed that there was any defect in the machinery itself, but that it was rendered dangerous by reason of the projecting set screw, and in that respect it could have been rendered safer by countersinking the screw, or placing the collar on the outside of the bracket supporting the shaft. It is the duty of the master to furnish to the servant reasonably safe tools, machinery, and appliances with which to work, and it is the servant's duty to exercise due care to avoid injury. These duties are reciprocal, and exist by implication based upon the contract of employment. The implied duty of each is measured by the standard of ordinary care. The law is well settled that the master discharges his duty when he provides machinery that is of ordinary character and reasonably safe. He is not required to provide the newest and best. Employers are not insurers, and the law recognizes that absolute safety is unattainable. They are liable for the results of their negligence, and not for the dangers necessarily connected with the service. The risks incident to the employment are assumed by the person accepting such employment; and in the absence of statutory provision prescribing the kind or character of machinery to be used, or regulating the manner of its use, an employer who uses machinery which is in common and ordinary use in the line of business in which he is engaged cannot be held liable for an accident which might have been prevented by the use of...