Lapelle v. Int'l Paper Co.

• Decision Date: 01 April 1902
• Citation: 71 N.H. 346,51 A. 1068
• Parties: LAPELLE v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

51 A. 1068

71 N.H. 346

LAPELLE

v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Coos.

April 1, 1902.

Exceptions from Coos county; before Justice Wallace.

Action by Simeon Lapelle against the International Paper Company. Verdict for plaintiff, and case transferred from the superior court on defendants' exception. Exception overruled.

The plaintiff, at the rime of his employment by the defendants and of his injury, was nearly 18 years of age, and was possessed of all his faculties. He had never worked in a mill, and had no knowledge of machinery. The defendants knew of his inexperience. They employed him and set him to work in one of their pulp mills, first in sweeping floors a part of a day, and then four days in removing pulp with a wheelbarrow from the machines by which it was made to other parts of the mill. The fifth or sixth day he worked with the night help, and near midnight was called on by the boss of the room, who was operating one of the pulp machines, to take charge of it while he ate his lunch. The plaintiff complied, and was injured while so employed. The machine consisted of a framework some six feet wide, containing a series of rolls, over and around which ran an endless belt of felt, upon which the pulp suspended in water was deposited, and by which it was carried along (the water escaping during the passage) to a roll at the forward end of the machine, to which the pulp adhered, and about which it was wound, forming a sheet when removed from the roll. This roll (designated "1," for convenience of reference) was 18 inches in diameter, and its axis was some 3 1/2 feet above the floor. There was another roll (2), 12 inches in diameter, directly below it; the axes of the two being in the same perpendicular plane, and being so located with respect to each other that the rolls nearly touched. At a considerable distance back of roll 2 there was a third roll (3), 7 inches in diameter, so located that its axis was nearly in the horizontal plane extending through the lower surface of roll 2. There was a fourth roll (4), 7 inches in diameter, situated below roll 3, and forward of it, perhaps a third of the distance between it and roll 2. The felt passed between rolls 1 and 2, then back around roll 3, then forward around roll 4, and then back to the rear of the machine. Roll 1 made about 14 revolutions a minute, and roll 3 about 36 revolutions. When the pulp had acquired a sufficient thickness on roll 1, the operator cut it lengthwise of the roll by means of a knife operated by a lever, and the sheet then fell forward upon a table provided for the purpose, from which it was removed to a wheelbarrow and taken away. A person standing in front of the machine could not see roll 3, but could see it if he stooped or got down on his hands and knees so as to bring his line of vision below the table and other obstructions. Pulp was it able to pass between rolls 1 and 2, and adhere to and clog roll 3. This happened 3 or 4 to 25 or more times a day, depending somewhat upon the skill of the operator. When it happened it was necessary to clean the pulp from roll 3. If this was not done, the machine would not do its work properly. It was the duty of the person who operated the machine to clean the roll whenever it became clogged in this way. The proper way to do it was to wash the pulp off by turning a stream of water upon the roll, and the machine was provided with a hose connected with a water supply for the purpose. It took a minute or a minute and a half for a sheet of pulp to accumulate on roll 1, and this was about the length of time that intervened between two successive removals of sheets when the machine was in operation. The sheets weighed about 35 pounds each. The plaintiff was called to operate the machine, as before stated, by the boss of the room. The plaintiff testified that no instructions whatever were given him regarding the method of operation. The defendants' superintendent testified that he showed the plaintiff how to clean roll 3 with water the evening before he was injured, but did not tell him of the danger of getting caught, nor of the danger incident to cleaning the rolls with the hand or a stick. There was corroborative and adverse testimony on this point. There was testimony tending to show that the plaintiff, while waiting for pulp to wheel away, observed the manner in which the machine was operated, and that ...