Huizenga v. Cutler & Savidge Lumber Co.
| Decision Date | 03 October 1883 |
| Citation | 51 Mich. 272,16 N.W. 643 |
| Parties | HUIZENGA v. CUTLER & SAVIDGE LUMBER CO. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Evidence from competent persons as to the dangerous character of machinery, and the consequences of coming in contact with it is admissible in an action for injuries caused thereby.
In an action by a laborer for personal injuries from machinery testimony as to his consequent inability to work, the amount of time he lost through sickness, what that time was worth to him, and his reasonable expenses for medical attendance, is admissible as bearing on the amount of damages to which he may be entitled.
Damages for personal injury include everything of which the person recovering them has been deprived as a direct and natural consequence of the injury.
A youth employed in a saw-mill was injured by the machinery before he had been there long. He had once before been employed in the same mill. Held, that in an action for the injury he could show the changes made in the arrangements of the mill in the interval between his terms of employment as bearing upon his want of familiarity with them when hurt.
In an action for a personal injury from mill machinery, the question whether a witness had ever heard of such injuries to other persons is improper as calling for hearsay testimony.
The age and intelligence of a laborer injured by machinery, and his experience in the use of such machinery, may be considered by the jury in an action by him for the injury.
Error to Ottawa.
Geo. C. Stewart, for plaintiff.
Geo. A Farr, for defendant and appellant.
The plaintiff in this case, while in the employ of the defendant was seriously injured by accidentally coming in contact with some of the machinery in the defendant's saw-mill, when he was at work under the direction of the head sawyer in the mill. At the time the injury occurred he was under the direction of the sawyer, removing a strap from some gearing that extended up through the floor two or three feet, and a portion of his pants caught in some cogs that were uncovered, and his leg was drawn thereby between the wheels and severely lacerated. From this injury he underwent great suffering and was laid up many months, but finally, after much care bestowed by physicians and nurses, which cost him five or six hundred dollars, he recovered, and the injury proved not to be permanent.
When the injury occurred the plaintiff was 16 years old, and had been in the employ of the defendant about 12 days, at a compensation of 12 shillings per day. It further appears that the plaintiff had once before been in the employ of defendant in the same mill, but at different work, and that the mill, after he left it, had undergone many changes and repairs, somewhat changing the machinery therein. It was claimed upon the trial that the plaintiff was not familiar with that portion of the machinery which injured him; that it was the duty of defendants to cover it, and that the same had negligently been allowed by defendants to remain uncovered, exposed, and in a dangerous condition; that he had never noticed or been warned of such danger by defendants, and had no knowledge of the same; and that said machinery might have been covered or boxed, without any detriment or impairment of its usefulness. The defendants did not deny that the injury complained of was received in the mill, and while plaintiff was in their employ and under the direction of the head sawyer; but claimed that he was fully acquainted with the condition and situation of the machinery by which he was injured; that the cogs were in plain sight, and the injury was the result of plaintiff's own carelessness and neglect, and that the machinery was sufficiently guarded, and to the extent that is usual in mills of that kind in that part of the country, and that they exercised all the care and diligence in that regard of prudent men.
Upon these several theories the case was tried and submitted to the jury under a well-considered charge by the court, and the plaintiff had judgment for $950. The defendants bring error, and the questions raised for our consideration are upon exceptions to the testimony and the charge of the court.
The third, fourth, fifth, ninth, and twelfth assignments of error are to the admissibility of the testimony relating to the dangerous character of the machinery which did the injury and what would be the natural effect of a personal contact with it. The questions were substantially as follows: "State whether, in your opinion, the gearing that turns the slab-rollers in an uncovered condition would be dangerous." "What would be the effect of a person coming in contact, or his clothing coming in contact, with that gearing--those cog-wheels?" The ground of the objection was immateriality We can see no objection to those questions. Certainly the dangerous character of the machinery was one of the questions involved in the case, and the opinion of competent witnesses was admissible to show it, as well as what consequences might be expected if a person were to come in contact with it....
To continue reading
Request your trial