Olson v. Doherty Lumber Co.

• Decision Date: 21 February 1899
• Citation: 78 N.W. 572,102 Wis. 264
• Parties: OLSON v. DOHERTY LUMBER CO.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

102 Wis. 264

78 N.W. 572

OLSON

v.DOHERTY LUMBER CO.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Feb. 21, 1899.

Appeal from circuit court, Ashland county; John K. Parish, Judge.

Action by Thomas Olson against the Doherty Lumber Company. From a judgment rendered thereon, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Action to recover for personal injuries. The allegations of the complaint cover facts which were established on the trial, or which there was evidence tending to prove, as follows: Plaintiff was injured while in the employ of defendant as a slab sawyer in a sawmill. There was a roller bench 56 feet long, 3 1/2 feet wide, and 3 feet high, so located, for part of its length, by the side of the carriage track of a band saw used in manufacturing logs, that the manufactured material would readily pass as fast as severed from the log to such bench and be conveyed away on rollers to points where it was taken from the bench according to its kind, the lumber being taken off nearest the saw, the edging going to near the end of the bench, and being there taken off on one side into what was called a “slasher,” the slabs to about the same point where they were taken off on the other side onto a slab bench and cut into four-foot lengths, and square timber going to the end of the bench where it was taken off by a person located there, ordinarily, for that purpose. Seven live rollers were located crosswise of the roller bench about four feet apart, commencing at the end nearer the saw, and there were similar rollers, except they were not live, all the way to the outer end of the bench. The slab bench was at the side of the roller bench, and about half the length of it, commencing at the outer end. Nearest the band saw the surface of the slab bench and roller bench about coincided, but the former inclined towards the slab saw, which was about six feet from the outer end of the bench, so that when the saw was reached the surface of the slab bench was about one foot lower than that of the roller bench. There were dead rollers in the surface of the slab bench, similar to those in the roller bench, so that slabs would pass easily down the incline towards the slab saw. As stated, the slab saw was about six feet from the outer end of the slab bench. It operated at right angles with such bench, there being a slit crosswise of the surface, six or seven inches wide, back of which a movable saw frame was located and adjusted so as to be nearly or wholly back of the slab bench and under the roller bench when the saw was running idle, but could be moved forward wholly into the slit in the slab bench as necessary in sawing up slabs. There was an iron handle attached to the saw frame, extending about six inches above and over the slab bench when the saw was swung back under the roller bench. Though the saw was designed to go back entirely clear of the slab bench when running idle, there was evidence tending to show that, at times at least, it did not go wholly back. There was nothing about the location of the saw or its surroundings that made the work of the slab sawyer unusually dangerous when he was operating it. In such work, the sawyer stood by the side of the bench in a boxed depression in the surface of the floor so that his feet were several inches below such surface. When a slab was in place over the slit, the sawyer, by taking hold of the handle mentioned, would pull the saw forward till it engaged and cut the slab in two. Then, by slightly pushing back on the handle, the saw would recede to its place under the roller bench. Plaintiff had an assistant and each was furnished with an iron tool about 16 inches long with a hook end about 2 inches long, pointed, and bent at about right angles with the handle. The hooks were used for pulling the slabs from the roller bench to the slab bench, and generally to facilitate moving slabs and other material that came down the roller bench. Sometimes short slabs were liable to get into such positions on the roller bench as to allow timbers to run upon them and cause a blockade, and in that situation plaintiff and his assistant were obliged to go upon the slab bench, pick out the slabs, and straighten the timbers, and push them along to the end of the roller bench. When timbers came down they would stop as soon as clear of the live rollers. In that situation it was necessary for plaintiff and his assistant, one or both of them, to go upon the slab bench and move the timbers along by using the hooks. Two additional live rollers would have lessened, or obviated entirely, the necessity for going upon the slab bench to do that kind of work under the circumstances mentioned. About five days before the injury, plaintiff complained to defendant of the dangers attending his work because of the necessity of going upon the slab bench as indicated, and defendant promised to...