Lindelof v. Hoagland Wagon Co.

• Citation: 186 S.W. 537
• Decision Date: 22 May 1916
• Docket Number: No. 12090.,12090.
• Parties: LINDELOF v. HOAGLAND WAGON CO.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)

186 S.W. 537

LINDELOF v. HOAGLAND WAGON CO.

No. 12090.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

May 22, 1916.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Thomas J. Seehorn, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by Harry J. Lindelof against the Hoagland Wagon Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Battle McCardle and F. L. Barry, both of Kansas City, for appellant. T. J. Madden and A. F. Drake, both of Kansas City, for respondent.

ELLISON, P. J.

Plaintiff's action is for personal injury received by reason of defendant's neglect to properly guard a circular ripsaw in use in its wagon factory. The judgment was for plaintiff in the trial court.

The saw was set vertically in a table, 4 feet 8 inches long and 3 feet 2 inches wide, and extended several inches above it. On one side of the saw, about the middle of the table, there was a gauge fastened by a "set screw" which was moved back and forth by loosening the screw and pushing it along a metal groove in which it was placed. There was an apparent effort to comply with the statute (section 7828, R. S. 1909) in reference to guarding machinery by having a narrow metal hood fastened in the rear of the saw and so shaped that it could be pulled down over the saw to a depth of about three-fourths of an inch and sufficient to prevent exposure to its teeth. This hood was so poorly adjusted that it was unsteady under the vibration caused by operating the saw, and would sometimes be struck by the saw. It was thought to be so unsafe that it was raised up, exposing the saw teeth, and to obviate this danger plaintiff, about one year before he was hurt, had attached to the gauge a board about 6 inches wide, which was about 2 inches higher than the saw teeth, and thus operated as a protection to the workman's hand in case it slipped when moving the gauge. But a day or two before the injury, and without plaintiff's knowledge, a board had been substituted which was so much narrower than the other that it was 1½ inches lower than the teeth of the saw, so that, in case one's hand should slip when moving the gauge, it was liable to pass over the board on against the saw; and that is what happened to plaintiff. There was abundant evidence to support the plaintiff in his position that the metallic hood guard was so entirely insufficient that its use was practically abandoned, and the board attached to the gauge by plaintiff was acting the part of a guard. There was likewise evidence to show that it was entirely feasible to have had a hood attached to an object independent of the table, which would therefore not vibrate, and which could be brought down over the saw without risk of coming in contact with it.

The same belt and machinery that ran the saw also operated a "jointer" standing close by. Just before plaintiff was injured he had started the machinery and dressed some lumber at the jointer, and then proceeded to use the saw, which was running under the power which had run the jointer. He measured the width he desired to cut the boards and...