Prentiss v. Kent Furniture Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 04 November 1886
• Citation: 63 Mich. 478,30 N.W. 109
• Parties: PRENTISS v. KENT FURNITURE MANUF'G CO.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

30 N.W. 109

63 Mich. 478

PRENTISS v. KENT FURNITURE MANUF'G CO.

Supreme Court of Michigan

November 4, 1886

Case made from superior court of Grand Rapids.

Action to recover damages for personal injuries. Instruction to jury to return verdict for defendant. Exception by plaintiff.

Maher &amp Felker, for plaintiff and appellant.

Taggart Wolcott & Gauson, for defendant.

SHERWOOD J.

This action is brought to recover damages for personal injury received by the plaintiff while employed in the defendant's furniture factory. The judge of the superior court of Grand Rapids, where the cause was tried, on request of counsel for the defendant, instructed the jury to render a verdict in favor of the defendant. To this instruction counsel for plaintiff excepted, and this exception only need be considered in disposing of the case.

The plaintiff was injured in October, 1883, at which time he was about 19 years of age. At the time the injury occurred the plaintiff was at work in the defendant's furniture factory in the city of Grand Rapids, and, while engaged in running a split-saw, his hand came in contact with the saw, in consequence of which he lost a little finger, and his hand was seriously injured, and, as defendant alleges, without fault on his part. The plaintiff claims and avers in his declaration that he had not been employed to do the work in which he was engaged at the time he was injured; that he had no experience in doing such work and lacked the strength and skill required to do the same; that he was ignorant of the danger incurred, and was required to do the work without being first warned or cautioned as to such danger, or instructed how to avoid it. And the plaintiff further claims that the defendant knew these facts, and, without informing him of the danger which overtook him, wrongfully directed him to run said splitting saw; and that while so engaged, and without the proper instruction and information, he met with the accident for which he now claims the defendant should compensate him.

The record shows the plaintiff had been at work for the defendant, in and about the establishment, the greater portion of the time for the previous three years, during which time his wages had been raised from $4.50 to $7.50 per week, and his work was more or less running machinery all the time; that, when the foreman placed him in charge of the split-saw, it was for a few days only, and he was, at that time, or three days before, working with what is called the "double cut-off" or "squaring-up saw," and, as he states in his testimony, he was "put on all of the kinds of machinery to run." He enumerates the sander, the boring-machine, the miter-saw, the cut-off saw, the single-shaper, and the buzz-planer. He appears to have had some considerable familiarity with the machinery in the manufactory, and had been employed in the same room in which the split-saw was located, and he was at work several days before he was injured in operating it. It does not appear from the testimony but that the machine was a good one, without defect, and ran well; nor does it appear that any portion of the same was so exposed as to be dangerous to those using it; and the evidence tends to show that the split-saw was one of the simplest of defendant's machines, and that it was not unfrequently operated without difficulty by unskilled workmen, and sometimes by beginners.

At the time of the accident the work given by the foreman for the plaintiff to do consisted in placing a block, one and a half inches thick, eight inches wide, and sixteen inches long, on the edge against the guage, and pushing it upon the saw until it had passed through the block from end to end; the saw cutting a trifle more than half...