Palmer v. Harrison

• Decision Date: 03 June 1885
• Citation: 57 Mich. 182,23 N.W. 624
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PALMER v. HARRISON.

23 N.W. 624

57 Mich. 182

PALMER v. HARRISON.

Supreme Court of Michigan

June 3, 1885

Error to superior court of Grand Rapids.

Kennedy & Thompson and J.C. Fitzgerald, for plaintiff and appellant.

Grove &amp Lawrence and M.J. Smiley, for defendant.

SHERWOOD J.

This action is in trespass on the case for an injury which the plaintiff alleges that he received, while in the employ of the defendant, by having his hand caught in a machine called a "jointer." The defendant was the owner of, and engaged in operating, a manufacturing establishment in the city of Grand Rapids, known as "Harrison's Wagon Works," at the time the injury to plaintiff occurred. The plaintiff was a boy 16 years old, of moderate intelligence, and, at the time of his employment by the defendant, had never before worked in a factory or shop where machinery was used, and had had no experience in working about it. The defendant hired the plaintiff to carry hubs boards, etc., as occasion required, about the work in the factory, and frequently passed and repassed the jointer in performing his work. At the time he received the injury he was carrying boards to a place near the jointer. The machine was stopped and started by shifting a belt from a loose pulley to a stationary one on the main shaft, by the use of a lever that came up through an opening in the floor, on one side of the machine. The knives of the jointer were operated by means of a belt running from the driving-shaft under the floor to a shaft on the south side of the machine.

The plaintiff's claim is that he was young and inexperienced that the machinery was dangerous, and that he was not warned of the dangerous character and condition of the machinery, and was ignorant thereof; that one of the pulleys used to propel the jointers was defective and out of repair, and by wabbling would drive the belt back upon another pulley, and would thus set the jointer in motion when no person was present or using it; that the defendant was negligent in suffering the pulley to remain thus out of repair, and the knives of the jointer to be uncovered or unguarded; that while he was removing the boards at the time the injury occurred, and laying them down near it, the person in charge stopped its running; that after he laid down the second board and turned around to go for another, the jointer suddenly started in motion by the wabbling of the defective pulley, and that by means thereof the plaintiff, without fault or negligence on his part, and while in the exercise of due and proper care, had his hand caught in the knives of the jointers, whereby it was so injured that amputation above the wrist became necessary. The plaintiff states his case in four counts. The defendant's plea is the general issue, with notice that the plaintiff's action is barred by lapse of time. The cause was tried in the superior court of Grand Rapids by jury, and after the testimony was taken and counsel had been heard, Judge PARRISH instructed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant, which was accordingly done, and judgment thereon rendered. The case is now before us on error,--the record containing a bill of exceptions in which all the testimony is set forth.

The vital question in this case is, was the defendant guilty of any negligence which contributed to the defendant's injury? because, if there was no negligence on the part of the defendant, it is entirely unnecessary to consider the question of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff, and judgment should be affirmed. If there was any evidence which fairly tended to show the injury occurred through any negligence on the part of the...