Ladonia Cotton Oil Co. v. Shaw

• Decision Date: 26 October 1901
• Citation: 65 S.W. 693
• Parties: LADONIA COTTON OIL CO. v. SHAW.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

65 S.W. 693

LADONIA COTTON OIL CO. v. SHAW.¹

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

October 26, 1901.

Appeal from district court, Fannin county; Ben H. Denton, Judge.

Action by M. V. Shaw against the Ladonia Cotton Oil Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

W. A. Bramlette and Taylor & McGrady, for appellant. H. P. Lane and Lusk & Thurmond, for appellee.

TEMPLETON, J.

The appellee, M. V. Shaw, was an employé of appellant, the Ladonia Cotton Oil Company, and lost an arm while feeding a crusher in the company's mill. He brought suit on account of his injuries, and prosecuted same successfully in the district court. In his petition, Shaw attributed his injuries to defects in the crusher, and of the failure of the company to warn him of the consequential danger. Contributory negligence and assumed risk were the defenses relied on by the company. Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish liability is the principal question presented on this appeal. It was shown that the crusher consisted of two large rollers covered with teeth or burrs. The rollers, when in operation, revolved rapidly toward each other, the burrs thereof almost touching. They were inclosed in a wooden framework, and over them was a plank platform, which was held in place by an iron bar around the same, and to which it was riveted. In the center of the platform was a slot into which oil cakes were fed into the crusher. When the platform was in proper condition the top thereof was several inches above the rollers. At the time of the accident the bar was broken, one of the planks was loose, and the platform sagged down until it was only slightly higher than the rollers. The crusher was fed by the feeder taking an oil cake and putting one end thereof into the slot, when it would be seized by the burrs or teeth of the rollers, and carried between the rollers and broken up. When Shaw was hurt the teeth were dull, and for that reason the rollers would not readily take hold of hard cake, and it was necessary to job or punch such against the rollers. Shaw had worked at the mill, loading meal on cars, for about a week, when, on the night of January 23, 1899, he was employed by one Samuels, the night foreman, to feed the crusher that night Shaw was then 26 years old, and without experience in such work. According to Shaw's own testimony, he was asked by Samuels, when he was employed, if he had ever done such work, which inquiry he answered in the negative. He was then asked if he thought he could feed the crusher, and replied that he could try. After he had been at work about one half hour, one Roper, the day foreman and general superintendent, came in. The cake Shaw was feeding was going through nearly whole, and Shaw says that Roper got a wrench and screwed up a nut. He further says that Roper then took a cake and shoved it through himself; that the cake did not go in quickly, and broke in large pieces; that Roper punched at one of the pieces, and jerked his hand back like it was hurt, though he did not say it was; that Roper then said to him: "When those pieces break up and get to dancing that way, just take another cake and job them through. Don't take your hand and pull them out." He denies having received any other instruction or warning. He continued to feed the crusher all that night. He began work again early in the morning of January 25th,—having been employed by Roper the night before to work that day,—and worked 3 or 3½ hours, when he was injured. He testified that he was injured while trying to job a cake between the rollers; that some of the cakes were hard, and some soft, while some were hard at one end and soft at the other end; that the rollers took hold of the soft cakes instantly upon the same touching the burrs, but that generally hard cakes had to be punched against the rollers; that the cake he was handling when hurt was soft at one end and hard at the other end; that he stuck the hard end in the slot, and punched it against the rollers, when it suddenly went in, his hand going in with it. He admitted that he knew the condition of the platform over the rollers, and that if his hand got between them it would be injured, but denied knowing that the burrs were dull until after the accident.

This evidence is sufficient to establish the fact that the crusher was defective as alleged; that is, that the platform over the rollers was sagged down, thereby diminishing the protection afforded by the platform to the hand of the feeder, and that the burrs were dull, thereby making it necessary for the feeder to job the hard cake against the rollers, when such action increased the danger of the feeder's hand being caught and crushed. Also, it is sufficient to show that the defects were such that they...