Nairn v. National Biscuit Co.

• Decision Date: 18 June 1906
• Citation: 96 S.W. 679,120 Mo. App. 144
• Parties: NAIRN v. NATIONAL BISCUIT CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

96 S.W. 679

120 Mo. App. 144

NAIRN v. NATIONAL BISCUIT CO.

Kansas Court of Appeals, Missouri.

June 18, 1906.

Rehearing Denied October 1, 1906.

1. MASTER AND SERVANT—EMPLOYMENT OF MINOR—MACHINERY—NEGLIGENCE — STATUTES.

The act of a master in requiring plaintiff, a minor, to work at a steam candy roller, in violation of Rev. St. 1899, § 6434, providing that no minor shall be required to work between the fixed or traversing parts of any machine while it is in motion by action of steam, etc., constituted negligence.

2. SAME—ASSUMED RISK.

Where defendant put plaintiff to work at a steam candy roller, in violation of Rev. St. 1899, § 6434, defendant took all the risks of danger to plaintiff in the operation of the machine.

3. SAME—CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.

Plaintiff, a minor, was employed to operate a steam candy roller in defendant's factory, in violation of Rev. St. 1899, § 6434. He saw that candy was sticking to the rollers and in order to prevent this was throwing starch on the rollers, when his fingers inadvertently came in contact with the sticky material on the rollers, causing his hand to be drawn between them and injured. Held, that plaintiff was guilty at most of mere negligence, and was not guilty of such contributory negligence as precluded a recovery.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Cyrus Crane, Special Judge.

Action by Joseph R. Nairn, by his next friend, against the National Biscuit Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Harkless, Crysler & Histed, for appellant. Rust & Campbell, for respondent.

BROADDUS, P. J.

The plaintiff, a minor, brought this action to recover damages for an injury he received while in defendant's employ. The plaintiff, about 15 years of age; was employed by defendant in its business, a part of which was the manufacture of candy. He was injured while engaged at work on a certain part of the machinery used in the business. The description of the machinery given by one of defendant's foremen substantially was as follows: There was a table about 20 feet long, in the center of which were two rollers, one on top of the other; one of these rollers was located on the under side of the table, the other came up above the table about one-fourth of an inch; these rollers were operated by means of steam and a belt; there was a small lever running from the tables so that the operator could turn the rollers in any desired direction. The purpose of these rollers was to press material into sheets preliminary to cutting them into smaller quantities. The method of doing the work was for the workman to take a batch of material that had been prepared and run it through the rollers from one side of the table to the other, whereupon the motion could be reversed and the material put through to the other side. The space between the rollers would be gradually lessened as the work progressed and finally this alternating movement of the candy between the rollers would result in reducing it to a flat mass of the desired thickness for cutting into smaller pieces. As the material was inclined to stick to the rollers, starch was sifted by the hand upon them to prevent it from so doing. It was shown that for several weeks prior to the date of plaintiff's injury he had been working in the room where the machinery in question was located, but at another part of the business. He had watched the operation of the machine and knew how it was done. He was put to work on the machine about three days before his injury. His statement of the occurrence was as follows: "I was rolling out the molasses caramel, and at the time I had just got rolled out the right height [thickness], a quarter of an inch, that was the height they wanted the molasses caramel rolled out. I was just rolling it out for the last two times...