Peter Bilodeau's Exrx. v. Moose River Lumber Co.

• Decision Date: 06 May 1916
• Citation: Peter Bilodeau's Exrx. v. Moose River Lumber Co., 97 A. 671, 90 Vt. 190 (Vt. 1916)
• Parties: PETER BILODEAU'S EXRX. v. MOOSE RIVER LUMBER COMPANY
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

97 A. 671

90 Vt. 190

PETER BILODEAU'S EXRX. v. MOOSE RIVER LUMBER COMPANY

Supreme Court of Vermont

May 6, 1916

October Term, 1915.

CASE for negligence.Plea, the general issue.Trial by jury at the April Term, 1915, Essex County, Miles, J., presiding.Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff.The defendant excepted.The opinion states the case.

Judgment affirmed.

Drew Shurtleff, Morris & Oakes for the defendant.

Porter Witters & Harvey for the plaintiff.

Present MUNSON, C. J., WATSON, HASELTON, POWERS, AND TAYLOR, JJ.

OPINION

TAYLOR

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for the death of her husband, Louis Bilodeau, who was employed by defendant in its sawmill at Lowelltown, Maine.In the operation of the mill the waste, consisting of sawdust and edgings, was carried some distance from the mill by means of a conveyer where it was burned.The conveyer consisted of an iron spout about 200 feet long set on an incline, the end where the waste was ejected being about 20 feet from the ground.A few feet from the end of the spout were two iron posts which supported it and extended some four feet above the spout.Sheets of metal were set up against these posts to protect the woodwork of the conveyer from the burning waste.At a time when the conveyer was being built over, a chain, selected by one Smith, defendant's boss millwright, had been placed around the projecting ends of the iron posts near the top for the purpose of steadying the posts and preventing their spreading.Thus this chain was some four feet above the spout and at right angles to it.It was a three-eighths inch cable chain which had previously been used to hold up the spout, and, in its former position, had been subjected to the heat from the burning waste.The outer end of the spout was supported by two railroad rails, connected together, extending beyond the upright iron posts.There was nothing for a person who had to go upon that part of the conveyer to stand upon except these rails; and nothing for him to take hold of except the sides of the spout, which extended about two feet above the rails.

The waste was carried through the conveyer by means of an endless chain or cable with lugs or buckets attached.The cable ran in the bottom of the spout and passed over a sprocket at the extreme outer end of the conveyer.The cable would frequently come off the sprocket, when it became necessary to go onto the conveyer to replace it.Originally this was done by the workmen going onto the conveyer and pulling the cable until sufficient slack was secured to permit its being replaced.Some three or four months before deceased met his death a mechanical device had been installed to make this operation easier.This device was constructed under the direction and supervision of defendant's millwright.A hand winch was attached to the framework of the conveyer between the mill and the upright iron posts; tackle blocks were attached to the chain connecting the top of the posts, and one end of the rope passing through the blocks was attached to the winch and the other end, when in use, was attached to the conveyer cable.Thus by turning the winch the cable would be drawn up and the necessary slack secured.This operation usually required four men; two at the winch, one at the sprocket, and another at some intermediate point to transmit signals from the man at the sprocket to the men at the winch.

The machinery at the mill was in charge of the boss millwright.Deceased was employed as an oiler and as assistant millwright.He had been employed in this capacity at defendant's Lowelltown mill about two years at the time of his death, and had previously worked for defendant in the same capacity in another mill for about three years.His duties required him to go onto the conveyer daily to oil the sprocket and at other times to assist in replacing the cable when it came off, which occurred frequently, often several times a day.On the day of the accident the cable came off the sprocket and deceased with Smith and two other workmen went onto the conveyer to replace it.He was directed by Smith, who was at the sprocket, to take a position on the rail supporting the spout near the upright posts to give directions to the men at the winch.He had signalled them to give Smith a little more slack.The additional strain on the cross chain to which the tackle blocks were attached caused it to give away; and the chain or blocks hit deceased causing him to fall headlong to a pile of rocks below.The fall fractured his skull, from which injury he died almost instantly.

The negligence complained of was in furnishing a defective chain and failure to inspect the same; and the defect claimed was an imperfectly welded link.

At the close of the evidence defendant moved for a directed verdict on several grounds which may be summarized as follows:

1.Failure to show negligence on the part of defendant.

2.Because on the evidence deceased was guilty of contributory negligence.

3.Because on the evidence deceased assumed the risk.

The case is here on defendant's exceptions to the overruling of its...