Lamb v. Wagner Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 16 May 1912
• Parties: LAMB v. WAGNER MFG. CO.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

155 Iowa 400

136 N.W. 203

LAMB

v.WAGNER MFG. CO.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

May 16, 1912.

Appeal from District Court, Black Hawk County; Chas. E. Ransier, Judge.

Action at law to recover damages for personal injury. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.J. E. Williams, of Waterloo, and W. H. Merner, of Cedar Falls, for appellant.

J. B. Newman, of Cedar Falls, and Edwards & Longley, of Waterloo, for appellee.

WEAVER, J.

The defendant is a manufacturer of hardware specialties and employed the plaintiff as a laborer in its factory. While so engaged, plaintiff undertook to clean a certain machine about which he was at work, and in so doing his hand was caught in the gearing and crushed to such an extent that amputation followed. He charges defendant with liability for such injury because of its alleged negligence in failing to instruct or warn him of the dangers attending the cleaning of the machine; in failing to provide a guard for the gearing; and in failing to furnish, as provided by law, a suitable belt shifter or other safe mechanical device for throwing off and on the belt by which the machine was operated. The defendant denies that it was in any manner negligent and alleges that defendant knew or ought to have known the danger to which he was exposed, and was well aware of the matters and things which he now charges as negligence, but remained in said employment without protest or complaint. The appellant argues for a reversal of the judgment below on the following grounds: (1) The plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law; (2) he assumed the risk; (3) the defendant was not negligent; and (4) there was no duty to warn the plaintiff.

[1] I. Taking these propositions in the inverse order of their statement, the third and fourth may be considered together. While the plaintiff had charged negligence in failing to warn or instruct him concerning the danger to which he was exposed, this allegation does not seem to have been submitted to the jury, and it is unnecessary for us to consider whether it has any support in the evidence.

[2] As bearing upon the other allegations of negligence, there was testimony tending to show that, while plaintiff had worked in this factory for several months, he had been employed in operating the machine where he was injured only about two days and had no previous experience with a machine of that kind. He claims to have been told by the foreman or manager that he should make use of the opportunity afforded by intervals or interruptions in his regular work to clean the machinery, and that on the day in question, such an opportunity occurring, he left the place where he usually stood or sat at his machine, and, going behind it, took a handful of cotton waste and began to wipe off or remove the oil with which the end of the machine had become soiled. In doing this he reached his hand into the space between the frame and a gearing which was in motion. In this act either his sleeve, or the cotton waste which he held, was caught in the gearing and his hand drawn into the cogs. It appears without dispute that the machine was not equipped with any belt-shifting device enabling him to conveniently disconnect the power and stop the motion, and the gearing was in no manner boxed or guarded except as the defendant claims that its position was in itself a sufficient guard. It was shown by expert evidence that a practicable and efficient guard could have been placed over this gearing without in any manner interfering with its operation. It follows then that, having failed to guard the gearing, defendant was negligent as a matter of law unless it was in fact so situated that the surrounding parts or attachments were such as to...