Kane v. Babcock & Wilcox Co.

• Decision Date: 18 November 1907
• Parties: KANE v. BABCOCK & WILCOX CO.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

67 A. 1014

75 N.J.L. 698

KANE

v. BABCOCK & WILCOX CO.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Nov. 18, 1907.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error to Circuit Court, Hudson County.

Action by Dennis Kane against the Babcock & Wilcox Company, Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

John W. Queen, for plaintiff in error. Thomas F. Noonan, for defendant in error.

DILL, J. In an action by an employé to recover damages from the employer, arising out of an injury to the hand and the loss of the third finger, it appears that he was employed to operate a machine for expanding tubular boilers, and, while thus engaged, his hand was caught in a chain belt by which power was transmitted to the machine, and he lost one finger from his left hand. The judgment was upon the theory that the defendant corporation failed to exercise reasonable care and skill in furnishing him with a safe machine, and in keeping the machine and appliances in repair.

The power was transmitted to the expanding machine upon which the plaintiff worked from an axle about 10 feet above the floor, through a chain belt which connected with the axle above by a loose sprocket wheel and with the machine by a similar sprocket wheel. The connection was made by a lever which ran from the ceiling around the sliding clutch, to which it was fastened by two bolts along the wall back of the machine. On the sprocket wheel and the sliding clutch were jaws, which came together and united. To turn on the power, the lever was pushed to the right and fastened with a hook in the lever to a staple in the wall. To turn off the power, the lever was moved to the left, and similarly fastened to another staple by a hook at the bottom of the lever. There was a key, four or five inches long, located on the inside of the sliding clutch. On the Saturday prior to the accident, in the morning, the bolts which fastened the lever to the sliding clutch, and also the key, fell out. The plaintiff at once reported to Kearney, the foreman in charge, that the machine was out of order, and he examined the machine and said he would have it fixed that afternoon after the shop shut down. On Monday morning the plaintiff found the machine had not meanwhile been fixed, and again he reported to the foreman, who thereupon instructed the plaintiff to go to Hennessy, the millwright, and have him make the repairs. The millwright was absent, and then, under like instructions, the plaintiff called upon Smith, the boss carpenter, who came, with two men, to fix the machine. The boss carpenter examined the machine, and said that he could not fix it. The plaintiff reported to the foreman, who told him to get Johnson, the head machinist. The plaintiff brought the machinist, who, in the presence of both the foreman and the boss carpenter, worked on the machine, and when he finished the foreman told the plaintiff that the machine was all right, to go ahead with his work. Meanwhile, and in their presence, the machinist instructed the plaintiff how to shut the power off from the axle of that particular machine without disturbing the others; and also instructed him that, if the chain belt came off, he was to put it on in a particular manner. It was about half past 8 when the plaintiff went to work again. About 10 o'clock the chain belt came off the lower sprocket wheel. The plaintiff followed the instructions given. He turned off the power by moving the lever to the left, and then fastened the hook to the staple in the wall. While putting on the belt in the manner in which he had been instructed the accident happened, the plaintiff's left hand was caught between the chain belt and the lower sprocket wheel, and the third finger was torn off. As counsel for the plaintiff in error says, "the pivot of the case" is...