Martineau v. National Blank-book Co.

• Decision Date: 13 April 1896
• Citation: 166 Mass. 4,43 N.E. 513
• Parties: MARTINEAU v. NATIONAL BLANK-BOOK CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

166 Mass. 4

43 N.E. 513

MARTINEAU v. NATIONAL BLANK-BOOK CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Hampden.

April 13, 1896

COUNSEL

William H. Brooks and William Hamilton, for plaintiff.

J.B Carroll and W.H. McClintock, for defendant.

OPINION

BARKER J.

The plaintiff was hurt in a blank-book factory, by the unexpected starting of a machine, run by a belt from an overhead shaft used for trimming paper and card board. The material to be trimmed rested upon a table, made in two sections, above which was a clamp, weighing about 250 pounds, used to hold the material firmly in place. A heavy knife, about 34 inches long, forced upward from beneath the table, and between its sections, trimmed the material. The clamp was carried upon perpendicular rods, two at each end, so arranged, in connection with geared wheels, near the floor at each end of the machine, that the clamp rose and fell as the wheels revolved. When in order, the machine would stop automatically, with the clamp up and the knife down, after each cut of the knife. The automatic appliances, and also the mechanism by which the operator could start and stop the machine at will, were at the right-hand end of the machine within the iron frame of the machine, while the clamp rods and the geared wheel at that end were just outside the frame. At the same end there was an opening through the frame behind the wheel, and the wheel was made with four arms, so that a person could reach through the wheel and frame, and manipulate the mechanism within the frame. Shortly before the plaintiff's injury the machine was out of order, and would not uniformly stop automatically, the knife and clamp sometimes going up and down until the machine was stopped by the operator. It could be so stopped by moving, either with the hand or foot, a lever on which were both a handle and a foot piece, just within the frame. The plaintiff was not a machinist by trade, and his work was neither the operation of the machine nor the repairing of machinery. He worked, however, in the same room, was acquainted with the machine, had repaired it twice,. and he had considerable mechanical skill. After several requests, he left his own work, and attempted to repair the machine. While he was at the right-hand end of the machine, at work, with his right arm through the geared wheel, and his right hand on the inner face of the wheel, the machine unexpectedly started, the clamp suddenly went down, the geared wheel revolved, and caught his right arm between the inner edges of the rim and the arm or spoke of the wheel and the perpendicular rods. The plaintiff's contention was that he was not asked to see what was the matter with the machine, and to repair it if he could, but that he was told, in substance, that it did not "knock out right," which we understand to mean that the automatic action did not work properly, and that he was merely asked to go and "fix the dog and clip." These were parts of the mechanism which came into play in starting and stopping the machine, both automatically or by means of a lever, and they were at the right-hand end of the machine. The clip was held by screws or bolts against the inner face of the geared wheel which carried the clamp rods on that end, and the dog was so placed within the frame as to be engaged with or separated from the clip by the lever. At the other end of the machine were a loose and a tight pulley for the belt from the overhead shaft. When the belt was on the loose pulley, no power was communicated from the overhead shaft. When the belt was on the tight pulley, the power was communicated to the machine, and transmitted by shafts under the table to the knife and clamp. On one of these shafts were clutches, regulated by the lever which engaged and disengaged the dog and clip, which lever also operated a rocker shaft which engaged and disengaged the clutches. When power was on, and the clutches suitably placed, power was transmitted to the knife and clamp; but the clutches could be so placed that neither the knife nor the clamp nor its supporting rods and geared wheels could move, even when the power of the overhead shaft was on the tight pulley and the fly wheel, and on the speed or power shaft. When all the parts of the machine were in order, it was impossible for the clamp to go down or the knife to come up if the dog was engaged with the clip. The perpendicular rods which carried the clamp were attached by crank-like fastenings to the geared wheels at the ends of the machine, so as slowly to raise and lower the clamp when the wheels revolved. When the clamp was at its highest point, if the machine was properly adjusted, those fastenings stood directly over the perpendicular axis of the shaft which carried the wheels; and in that position the weight of the clamp had no tendency to make the wheels turn. But if, when the clamp was up, the fastenings were not directly over the axis, the weight of the clamp tended to turn the wheels, but with how much force was in dispute. When the machine was properly adjusted, it stopped automatically with the knife beneath the table, and the clamp at its highest point, and with the crank-like fastenings perpendicular or over the center. There was evidence tending to show that, on the day of the accident, the clamp rods were off center, so that, when the clamp was up, its weight tended to turn the wheels to which the rods were attached, and that a slight force applied to one of the wheels would be sufficient to stop them if turned only by the weight of the clamp; but, if the power from the overhead shaft was on them, the wheels would turn with great force. There was also evidence tending to show that, owing to the defects in the belt, and in the driving pulley over which it ran on the overhead shaft, the belt had a tendency, when running on the loose pulley, to tick the tight pulley, and to creep from the loose to the tight pulley, to such an extent as to communicate the power of the overhead shaft to the machine, and to put in motion the fly wheel, the momentum of which kept power on the speed shaft after the belt was on the loose pulley. The plaintiff contended that this tendency of the belt to tick the tight pulley, and to creep upon it, was unknown to him, that he had no reason to know it, and that the defendant ought to have known it, and ought to have warned him of the danger to which that tendency might expose him, if he attempted to repair the machine with the belt running on the loose pulley.

The testimony given at the trial is stated in full in the bill of exceptions, and is very voluminous and conflicting. As many of the witnesses testified with parts of the machinery or with photographs or drawings before them, to which they often referred, it is difficult for us to feel that we always get the exact meaning of the witnesses. We understand, however that it would have been competent for the jury to find, either that the plaintiff was asked, generally, to see what was the matter with the machine, and to "fix" it if he could, or that he was told that it did not "knock out right," and was asked merely "to fix the dog and clip";...