Inland Steel Company v. King

• Decision Date: 04 November 1915
• Docket Number: 22,840
• Parties: Inland Steel Company v. King
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

110 N.E. 62

184 Ind. 294

Inland Steel Company v. King

No. 22,840

Supreme Court of Indiana

November 4, 1915

Rehearing Denied January 14, 1916.

From Porter Superior Court; Harry B. Tuthill, Judge.

Action by Martin S. King against the Inland Steel Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, the defendant appeals. (Transferred from the Appellate Court under § 1405 Burns 1914, Acts 1901 p. 590.)

Affirmed.

Bomberger Curtis & Starr and Glenn D. Peters, for appellant.

Gavit & Hall, for appellee.

OPINION

Lairy, J.

This appeal is taken from a judgment in favor of appellee for personal injuries. The only questions presented are those which arise under a motion for a new trial, the complaint having been held sufficient on a former appeal. King v. Inland Steel Co. (1912), 177 Ind. 201, 96 N.E. 337, 97 N.E. 529. The record shows that appellee was employed by appellant as a laborer in its mill and that while he was engaged in his labors about the mill his foot slipped into some unguarded cog wheels and he was thereby injured. Appellee's action is based on this injury and he relies upon the negligence of appellant in failing to furnish and keep in place proper guards for these cog wheels. The evidence shows without dispute that appellee at the time he was injured was a millwright and that he was subject to the orders of the millwright boss. His duties required him to go about the plant and adjust the machinery and to report anything that was broken or that was out of order. When appellee was injured he was engaged in lining up the rolls in the vicinity of the unguarded cog wheels. The rolls were not in operation when he commenced the work, but while he was engaged in adjusting set screws in obedience to an order, the rolls started and his foot slipped off the table roll into the cog gears. The cog wheels in question were situated about thirteen inches above the floor and on the opposite side from the person who stood at the table to guide the metal in the operation of the rolls, and there was no occasion to go near them except for the purpose of making adjustments or in case ingots stuck and stopped the rolls. There was evidence to show that these cogs could have been guarded without interfering with the operation of the machinery while other evidence showed that they would heat if guarded. A question of fact was thus presented which the jury decided by its verdict in favor of appellee.

The evidence further shows without dispute that the machinery which propelled the rolls was operated by steam power and that the power was controlled by a lever operated by a man in a shanty about twenty-five feet from the place of the accident. When the lever was on center the machinery was stopped and it was started by moving it in one direction and reversed by moving it in the opposite direction. The evidence does not show what caused the machinery to start at the time the accident occurred but there was evidence to show that there was no ratchet to hold the lever on center, and that it sometimes started when no one moved the lever. Under this state of the evidence it is argued that the starting of the machinery was the proximate cause of the injury and that the unguarded gearing can not be regarded as the proximate cause. This question was decided adversely to appellant on the former appeal. Where two causes combine and proximately concur in producing an injury, the party at fault for one of such causes will be held liable, provided the injury would not have occurred in the absence of such fault. King v. Inland Steel Co., supra; Hammond v. Kingan & Co. (1913), 53 Ind.App. 252, 101 N.E. 385.

The principal contention on behalf of appellant is that the facts disclosed by the undisputed evidence show that appellee was guilty of contributory negligence in failing to close a valve in the engine by means of which the steam could be shut off in such a way that the rolls could not be moved even though the lever was pushed off center. The evidence shows without dispute that there was such a valve and that the engine was only about eight feet from the place where appellee was injured. Appellee testified that he knew of this valve, that he could have closed it had he so desired, that there would have been no chance to start the table rolls had he done so, and that he could then have worked in perfect safety. There was other evidence to show that the millwrights generally shut off this valve when a job was to be done which required considerable time, but that when the job was a short one it was frequently done without shutting off this valve. Upon these facts appellant asserts that appellee was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, while it is claimed on behalf of appellee, that the question as to whether appellee exercised such care as a person of ordinary prudence would have used under like circumstances, was one of fact to be decided by the jury. Contributory negligence usually presents a question of fact for the decision of a jury. It is only in cases where the facts are undisputed and where only a single inference can be drawn therefrom that the court can say as a matter of law that a certain course of conduct does or does not constitute reasonable care. In this case the facts are undisputed. There was a valve in the engine by means of which the steam and power could have been shut off, and if appellee had closed this valve before starting to do the work he would not have been injured. This...