Montayne v. N. Elec. Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 12 December 1905
• Citation: 127 Wis. 22,105 N.W. 1043
• Parties: MONTAYNE v. NORTHERN ELECTRICAL MFG. CO.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

127 Wis. 22

105 N.W. 1043

MONTAYNE

v.NORTHERN ELECTRICAL MFG. CO.^a1

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Dec. 12, 1905.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Dane County; E. Ray Stevens, Judge.

Action by Ray Montayne, by guardian ad litem, against the Northern Electrical Manufacturing Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

The plaintiff entered defendant's employ on May 2, 1904, and while operating a punch press in defendant's shops was injured on June 9th following. The defendant is a corporation engaged in the manufacture of electrical appliances. The machine which plaintiff operated at the time of the accident is known as the “Bliss Press No. 20.” It was installed in defendant's shops in February, 1902. In so far as the record discloses it was of standard and approved design and construction, and such as is in common use by manufacturers. It is operated by an independent electric motor connected with the fly wheel of the press, which revolves upon a shaft that is stationary when the press is not in operation. The main operating parts of the press rest on and are held in place by a heavy frame, and consist of the fly wheel, a crank shaft, a drop punch, a table and die, and the brake. The parts employed in putting the machine in action consist of a treadle, a treadle spring, treadle rods combinedwith a rocker, a latch to which is joined a latch spring, a trigger and trigger spring. The trigger is integral with a clutch placed in a groove of the shaft on which the fly wheel revolves. In operating the machine, the communication of power from the motor rotates the fly wheel upon the stationary crank shaft. To put the punch in operation the person manipulating the machine presses down the treadle with his foot. This draws down the lower treadle rod, which is connected with the treadle lever below and the rocker arm above. The rocker arm is thereby depressed, and with it the upper treadle rod attached to the rocker arm at its lower end and to the arm of the latch at its upper end. This movement draws down the latch arm, and throws the latch out of engagement with the trigger. This release of the trigger permits the trigger spring to move the trigger, which turns and throws the clutch out into one of two grooves of the fly wheel, thereby engaging the wheel and the crank shaft, causing it to rotate and the punch attached to the crank of the shaft in turn to drop and rise at each turn of the wheel and shaft. When the machine is running the shaft makes 120 revolutions a minute, thus making the punch drop at the rate of 120 times per minute while it continued in operation. Upon removal of the pressure from the treadle, the power on the treadle and the rocker arm is reversed by means of a treadle spring, which lifts the treadle lever, and pushing the rods up throws the latch into place so that it will engage with the trigger, thereby disengaging the clutch from the fly wheel, causing the shaft to stop with the crank in an elevated position, and holding the punch suspended above the die table of the press. The stopping of the shaft and the holding of the punch are designed to occur automatically in the normal operation of the press. In using the press for making disks and doing similar work the person manipulating the press places the material on the die, presses the treadle with his foot, and then releases it at once. This drops the punch, raises it again, stops it automatically, and holds it there until it is dropped again by throwing these operative parts of the machine into action again by pressure on the treadle. The dies used are of different kinds to meet the various wants for different products. Two of them are attached at a time, one to the table and another to the punch. The latter drops onto the material placed on the lower and stationary one. The space between the dies, when the punch is lifted to its full height, is about three inches.

The plaintiff had been employed in several manufacturing establishments as an apprentice, and with a view of obtaining practical knowledge of machines and their operation had worked about and with machinery from August, 1902. He had worked with a punch press like the one in question, but of a smaller size. It appears that plaintiff had the intelligence to comprehend his work and to understand in a general way the nature of his employment and the liability to injury from dangers apparently incident to it. He received no special instructions concerning the danger incident to running the press. He testified that defendant's department foreman showed him how to place the material to be run through the press on the lower die, and to trip the press, and to remove the product with the hands, and that he did the work in the way in which the foreman did it in showing him. This testimony is contradicted by the foreman. Plaintiff states that he worked at the press on Monday, punching copper segments; that he continued working there on Tuesday, making mica segments until about 9 o'clock in the forenoon, when the punch dropped repeatedly without pressure on the treadle; that he called the foreman's attention to this abnormal operation, as he had been instructed to do; that the foreman then cut off the power, adjusted some of the parts of the machine, and directed plaintiff to proceed with the work; that he did so, and that at the first operation the punch dropped twice without stopping. This occurred in the presence of the foreman, who again made further adjustments and again directed plaintiff to proceed with his task, telling him that the machine was all right. He worked at the press on Wednesday until a part of the punch broke. The foreman was notified of this, and he removed parts of it for repair, and set plaintiff at other work for the remainder of the day. On Thursday, June 9th, plaintiff was directed by the foreman to work at the press making disks, and was assured by him that the machine was set up for the job and that it was all right. He continued the work, with the exception of about an hour spent at other work, until 11:15 o'clock, when he tripped the press in the usual way to cut a disk out of a piece of tin placed in the lower die, the punch dropped, but the lock failed to hold, and stop it automatically after being elevated on the first revolution, but the punch dropped again a second time before stopping, without any pressure having been applied to the treadle; that the second drop of the punch caught his hand, and severed parts of it.

Plaintiff was the only person who observed the operation and his testimony as to the second dropping of the punch is as follows: “Q. Now, at the time you were injured state whether or not it dropped the second time rapidly or slowly. A. Dropped rapidly. I had to put my hand under to get the work out, and that is the position my hand was in when the punch dropped. I hadn't had time to draw my work out.” On cross-examination, in speaking of the abnormal dropping on a prior occasion, after the foreman had been notified and had adjusted parts of the machine, he states: “After he [the foreman] tried it a couple of times, it worked all right, and I went to work. The first time I put my foot on the treadle, it dropped again. It did not continue to drop that time; just dropped twice, that is all. Q. Just the same as it did the time you hurt your hand later? A. Yes, sir.” He stated that the pieces of tin for making disks, used by the foreman in showing him how to run the press and to do his work, were placed on the die with the hands, and that the disks were removed by hand after the punch had dropped and returned to its stationary position; that he did the work in this way when he was injured; that the disks and rims of tin left as waste were of such size, shape, and in such position on the die that it was necessary to put his hand under the area of the cutting die of the punch in order to remove them. This is denied by defendant's experts on the subject.

Evidence was also adduced bearing on the following questions: (1) That the treadle latch attached to the frame of the machine, over the treadle, might possibly have become loosened and momentarily have held the treadle down, and after the removal of the foot from the treadle have caused the second drop of the punch. (2) That the trigger spring and clutch were gummed from accumulations of oil and dust so as to retard their action and to prevent them from performing their functions in the normal operation of the press. (3) That the treadle rod, leading from the treadle lever to the rocker arm, was attached to the rocker arm by a set screw, and that this set screw was worn loose and was liable to permit the treadle rod to slip and move in the rocker and result in defective operation of the latch by failing to engage the trigger, and thereby bringing about the regular automatic stopping of the punch after it had dropped and risen. (4) As to the absence of a lock nut on the set screw, to hold it in place after being firmly set to hold the treadle rod. Proof of abnormal operation of the press was given by a number of witnesses besides plaintiff, and was to the effect, that in operating the machine at different times before the accident it had made a second drop after the removal of the foot from the treadle, and that defendant's officers and agents had been informed of such defective operation. Defendant adduced evidence showing that the machine was of approved design and construction, and the same as those commonly and generally used by manufacturers as standard, and adduced the evidence of its superintendent, department foreman, and others, tending to show that the machine was free from discoverable defects, which might cause the defective operation complained of.

A number of exceptions were preserved to rulings on evidence, on refusals to submit requested questions in the special verdict, on refusals to give instructions, and to instructions as given, and to...