Obert v. Hammermill Paper Co.

• Decision Date: 10 May 1915
• Docket Number: 478
• Citation: 249 Pa. 456,95 A. 103
• Parties: Obert v. Hammermill Paper Co., Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

95 A. 103

249 Pa. 456

Obert v. Hammermill Paper Co., Appellant

No. 478

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

May 10, 1915

Argued April 26, 1915

Appeal, No. 478, Jan. T., 1914, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. Erie Co., Nov. T., 1912, No. 53, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Oscar B. Obert v. Hammermill Paper Company. Affirmed.

Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries.

The facts appear in the following opinion of BENSON, J., sur defendant's motion for a new trial and for judgment n.o.v.

This is an action of trespass, brought by the plaintiff, Oscar B Obert, to recover damages which he claims to have sustained by reason of an injury which he received while in the employ of the defendant company, as a paper maker, on the 21st day of December, 1911.

At the time of the accident, the plaintiff had charge of and was operating a paper making machine in the plant of the defendant company in the City of Erie, Pennsylvania. The machine, upon which the plaintiff was working, was about 125 to 150 feet in length and composed of three parts or presses which presses were referred to in the evidence as press number one, two and three. Each of the parts is composed of one large pair of felt rolls termed the "press" and in addition thereto, a series of similar rolls or presses termed "driers," there being on the entire machine in addition to the three principal rolls or presses twenty-five or more driers distributed along the entire length of the machine, through which the paper passed in the course of its manufacture. Arranged at convenient intervals along the side of the frame or housing of the machine, were foot-boards or steps to enable the operator to pass forward and backward from the one set of presses and driers to another, in following the course of the paper through the machine. These foot-boards or steps attached to the machine about twenty to twenty-six inches above the floor, were necessary for the reason that the course of the paper through the press was at such an elevation that it could not be reached by the operator from the floor.

The foot-board or step is made of iron, being about fifty-four inches long by thirteen inches wide, and on the inner side is a flange at right angles with the top or surface of the step containing two slots. The step itself being held in position at the side of the machine by two wrought iron brackets or dowels bolted on to the frame of the machine and slipped through the corresponding slots on the flange of the step, permitting the step to rest loosely upon the brackets. The foot-board opposite the third press, where the accident occurred, was at an elevation from the floor of twenty-six inches. The next step or foot-board was placed opposite or nearly opposite the drier of the third press, a distance of about thirty-two inches from the step of the third press and at an elevation of about twenty inches above the floor.

It is the custom of the operator to pass along the side of the machine by stepping from one foot-board to another in either direction. The evidence for the plaintiff tends to show that the brackets upon which the foot-board or step of the third press rested, fitted loosely into the slots on the flange of the step, and for this reason a very slight pressure was sufficient to displace or cause the step to slip from the brackets when used by the operator in stepping upon it from another step. This evidence is corroborated by the introduction in evidence by the defendant of a step, testified to be similar in construction to the step on the third press of the machine in use by the operator at the time of the accident, but admittedly not the step in use at the time of the accident. The step introduced in evidence by the defendant was easily displaced by a slight kick or pressure.

The machine, upon which the plaintiff was working, was known as a Moore & White, and had been recently installed in the plant of the defendant company, and had been in operation under the charge of the plaintiff for about fifteen days. The evidence for the plaintiff further shows that on machines of like character to the one in use, and which are in general use in the paper...