Miller v. Inman, Poulsen & Co.

• Decision Date: 25 November 1901
• Parties: MILLER v. INMAN, POULSEN & CO.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

66 P. 713

40 Or. 161

MILLER v. INMAN, POULSEN & CO.

Supreme Court of Oregon

November 25, 1901

Appeal from circuit court, Multnomah county; Alfred F. Sears, Jr. Judge.

Action by Marie Miller, as administratrix of Frederick J. Miller deceased, against Inman, Poulsen & Co. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

J.M. Gearin, for appellant.

Gustav Anderson and Geo. E. Chamberlain, for respondent.

BEAN, C.J.

This is an action brought by the administratrix of Frederick J Miller's estate to recover damages for his death. For some two or three months prior to his death Miller was employed by the defendant as a common laborer in its mill. It was his duty, among other things, to clear away the trimmings and sawdust from a space between one of the saws and the wall, 4 or 5 feet distant. Over this space, 3 feet from the floor, a line shaft 2 1/2 inches in diameter revolved, when the mill was in operation, at the rate of 500 revolutions a minute. On the end of the shaft, near the wall, and about 4 feet from the saw, was a large pulley, 20 inches in diameter over which ran a 10-inch belt. The shaft was in two pieces joined about 6 inches from the pulley and 3 1/2 feet from the saw by flange couplings 9 inches in diameter, held together by bolts and nuts. These bolts ran parallel to the shaft, and one of them, as the evidence tended to show, extended out on the opposite side from the pulley, about 1 1/2 to 1 3/4 inches beyond the nut. Miller's work was in the space between the pulley and the saw, and it was often necessary, in removing the sawdust and trimmings, for him to stoop or reach under the revolving shaft and couplings. On the night of November 21, 1899, while he was thus engaged at work, he was caught, whirled around the shaft, and so injured that he died in a few minutes. No one saw him caught, but two of his fellow workmen, who were some distance away, saw him immediately after, and both testify that he was being whirled around the shaft near the coupling, and a part of the clothing torn from his body was wrapped around the coupling. The mill was usually stopped a few moments while changing crews in the morning and evening, and again at midnight for lunch, but there is no evidence that Miller's attention had been called to the projecting bolt, which was not visible when the shaft was in motion, or that he had any knowledge of it. The plaintiff had a verdict and the question before us is whether there was any evidence to warrant it.

It is the duty of a master to exercise reasonable care having regard to the usages, habits, and customs of the business, to provide his servant with a reasonably safe place in which to work, and reasonably safe instrumentalities and appliances to work with, and to continue the same care to keep them in that condition. For a failure in this regard he is liable to a servant injured thereby who is himself free from contributory negligence. The servant, on the other hand, assumes for himself the ordinary and obvious dangers of the work or business in which he engages, but not the risk arising from the negligence of the master, unless he has or is chargeable with knowledge thereof. He has a right to assume, without inquiry or examination, except where the...