Miller v. Cedar Rapids Sash & Door Co.

• Decision Date: 17 January 1912
• Citation: 134 N.W. 411,153 Iowa 735
• Parties: MILLER v. CEDAR RAPIDS SASH & DOOR CO.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

153 Iowa 735

134 N.W. 411

MILLER

v.CEDAR RAPIDS SASH & DOOR CO.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Jan. 17, 1912.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Cedar Rapids; C. B. Robbins, Judge.

Action for damages resulted in judgment against defendant, from which it appeals. Affirmed.Dawley & Wheeler, for appellant.

Barnes & Chamberlain, for appellee.

LADD, J.

The plaintiff was engaged in operating one of defendant's machines, known as a “sander,” when, as is alleged, his right foot was caught in a belt, drawn through an opening in the floor, and both bones fractured below the knee. The two grounds of negligence alleged are: (1) In failing to properly guard the rapidly running belt, so that plaintiff's foot could not come in contact therewith while he was engaged in operating the machine; and (2) in negligently and carelessly using and permitting to be used a belt upon the said machine with a hole in it.

Several errors are assigned, to intelligently understand which reference must be made to the facts. The sander is somewhat difficult to describe. It was about 4 feet high, when the pressure top was down, and something like 5 feet wide. The pressure top could be raised about 12 or 14 inches, and will take in 42 inches of lumber in width, which was fed by the operator between the pressure top and the bed. This top was heavy, weighing about 1,000 pounds, and could not be raised by hand. It was raised by power, which was applied by means of a small lever at the left end of the machine; the operator facing it. This lever worked sidewise and over a space of about 2 or 2 1/2 inches, and was about 2 feet from the floor. The power to run the sander came from the main shaft, and thence to the sander by means of belt connections over pulleys at the right end of the machine. It was used to smooth lumber by sandpapering it, pressing lumber against three revolving rollers; the first being covered with coarse, the second with medium, and the third with fine, sandpaper. To raise the pressure top, the operator, facing the machine, pushed the pressure lever to his left, away from the machine, and to lower it he pulled this lever toward him a distance of about an inch and a half. The power lever was at the operator's right, at the right end of the machine. Its lower end was fastened beneath the floor, and it passed through a slot in the floor and stood above it 4 1/2 or 5 feet. This lever is a strip of hard pine, 1 1/8 inch in thickness, and varying in width from 4 inches at the floor to 2 inches at its top, and its purpose was to put on or throw off the power from the sander; the power being applied by pushing the lever to the right, or from the machine, and throwing it off by pulling it toward the machine. The rollers referred to are connected with three different pulleys at the right end of the machine, and these are turned by belts, which pass from the pulleys through the floor to the shafting. These pulleys, belts, and the holes in the floor through which they run are covered by a guard, which is “made from an 8 or 10 inch board that comes from the floor on a slant to above the pulley, then ranging back over another pulley, and then down to the floor.” Boards were nailed on the outside from the machine, leaving spaces 4 or 6 inches wide, with nothing on the inside, toward the machine. Slats three-fourths or seven-eighths of an inch thick were nailed to the floor all around the hood or guard, so that it set in a pocket or groove, the depth of the slat. It was fastened in no other way. This description will be better understood by reference to the attached photograph, which shows the guard set out from the machine.

IMAGE

The plaintiff testified that the first belt conveying power was directly in front of the power lever, about 2 1/2 inches from it, and that the front board of the hood stood between these, and about an inch from the belt; and, further, that: “On the afternoon of the 24th day of December, 1909, just before I was injured, I was putting a door through the machine, and the paper tore. When the paper tears, it gives an unusual noise--clip, clip, clip--very fast, and it is then customary to stop the machine as quickly as possible, because if the paper should tear and get fast under the drum it is liable to tear the felt or wires in the drum, and so cause a delay of five or six hours to fix it. On this occasion, I found the paper torn on the front drum. I threw the power off, and discovered that the paper on the front drum was torn. I released the pressure enough to take the door out. When I had the door out, I found that the paper wouldn't tear, and, in order to release the paper, I took hold of the pressure lever, and found that the power was out. The motion stopped, and I reached over with my foot to the power lever.” After saying that, to “raise the drum and get the paper off, it will be necessary to put the machine in motion again,” he proceeded: “I took my foot, with my hand on the pressure lever and my foot against the power lever, to raise the bed. Q. What occurred then? A. My foot slipped off the power lever against the hood, and threw the hood off, and my foot went in between them. Q. Was your foot caught in the belt, or not? A. The belt caught my foot, and drew it onto the floor. My foot was in the slot in the floor, when I raised myself up by taking hold of the power lever and pulling myself up. Q. Where was the guard? A. The guard was right on its side. Q. Were you able to get up yourself? A. Yes, sir; I did. Q. How did you raise yourself? A. By taking hold of the power lever. Q. What did you discover when you pulled yourself up--did you raise the guard from the floor? A. Yes, sir. * * * The belt was at high velocity when my foot got tangled with the belt, which came off. I had to pull the belt out to get my foot out, and I found, after I pulled the belt up, there was a hole in it. * * * Q. Was your foot in the neighborhood of the hole? A. Yes, sir.”

The witness testified further that he had been directed by the superintendent to work rapidly, as they wished to get the work then on hand done that evening, as the shop would be closed for a week, though the superintendent denied having told him to hurry, but explained that he did say that the work should be done that evening, even if it were found necessary to work overtime. Plaintiff testified that his foot was on the lever, about 18 inches from the floor, when it slipped, and that at that time his left hand was on the pressure lever, and his right hand on the table; that he might have stepped over and pushed the lever by hand, but that he had frequently done so with his foot prior to that time; that if the guard had not fallen his foot would not have gotten into the belt; that his face was toward the power lever when his foot slipped, and instantly upon striking the edge of the guard it was caught by the belt; that the hole in the belt was about 2 1/2 inches one way by one-half inch the other. “Q. You do not know whether your foot got caught in that hole, or not? A. Certainly, I do. Q. Do you mean that your foot got caught in a hole about 2 1/2 inches long and a half inch wide? A. Yes, sir. Q. How do you know that your foot got caught in the hole? A. Because it was there, and the belt had the edge of my sole in the edge of the hole.”

Whether it would have been practicable, without interfering with the operation and efficiency of the machine, to have attached the guard with a small latch to the floor, or by bracing it to the cupboard in the rear, or by drilling a small hole into the casting forming the side of the sander, and inserting the screw eye therein, and connecting the hook to the top of the guard, was in dispute, as was also the distance from the pressure lever to the power lever, plaintiff estimating this at 66 inches, and defendant's witnesses testified it was 78 inches.

There was also a conflict in the evidence as to whether employés, in operating the sander, frequently, when lifting the pressure top with the left hand applied to the small lever, turned on the power by pressing the foot against the power lever, the plaintiff saying that this was done nearly every day, and had been done by him in the presence of a superintendent not then in the factory, and he was somewhat corroborated by another, who had operated the machine; while the testimony of the superintendent was to the effect...