Reddington v. Blue

• Citation: 149 N.W. 933,168 Iowa 34
• Decision Date: 16 December 1914
• Docket Number: No. 29802.,29802.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
• Parties: REDDINGTON v. BLUE & RAFERTY.

168 Iowa 34

149 N.W. 933

REDDINGTON

v.BLUE & RAFERTY.

No. 29802.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Dec. 16, 1914.

Appeal from District Court, Montgomery County; Thomas Arthur, Judge.

Action at law to recover damages for injuries received by plaintiff while working about a machine in the defendant's factory. Trial to a jury. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appeal. Affirmed.Denver L. Wilson and Thomas W. Keenan, both of Shenandoah, and Ralph Pringle, of Red Oak, for appellant.

McKenzie & Cox, of Omaha, Neb., and W. C. Ratcliff, of Red Oak, for appellee.

DEEMER, J.

Defendant is a partnership, conducting a bottling works in the city of Red Oak, Iowa, and in its plant it had a machine known as the Crown Soda Capping machine. Plaintiff was employed to work with this machine, and, while in the discharge of his duties, a glass bottle, which he was filling, burst, and some of the pieces of glass struck his left wrist, about four inches above the hand, severing the tendons, arteries, and nerves, and producing what he claims are permanent injuries. It was alleged that defendant was negligent in not properly guarding the machine on the left side thereof, through which the bottles were inserted, and that this was the proximate cause of the injury.

Defendant denied all negligence on its part, alleged that, if the machine was not guarded, it was due to plaintiff's own fault and neglect, pleaded contributory negligence and assumption of risk, and also pleaded a compromise and settlement with plaintiff for all the injuries he (plaintiff) sustained. In reply plaintiff denied all affirmative allegations of the answer, and pleaded that the agreement of settlement and compromise was without consideration, and that it was signed under a mutual mistake of fact as to the nature and extent of his injuries, and further alleged that the settlement was not in fact, and was not intended to be in compromise or settlement of anything more than plaintiff's loss of time. On these issues the case went to a jury, resulting in a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $1,000.

The machine which it is claimed caused the damage is a bottling and capping implement, and had a guard immediately in front of the operator to prevent injury from flying glass; but on the left side, where the bottles were inserted, there was no guard. The machine is difficult of description, and we here show what we understand to be a photograph of it.

IMAGE

The following testimony shows the nature of the guard and the manner in which the machine was operated:

“The machine stands about four feet high, has a head on it which works up and down with a spring and foot lever. When you push the lever down, it pulls the head of the machine down. You put your bottles in on the left-hand side, and the left-hand bottle is being filled with syrup while the right-hand one is being filled with water. There is a lever on the top which distends the rubber which fits around the neck of the right-hand bottle so that the water can't get out on either side of the bottle. On this left-hand side is a lever pointing towards me. You turn it around so that it runs the water into the bottle; turning it around a little further lets the gas out of the bottle. You turn the lever back when the bottle is full, put your foot down with quite a force to pull the head of the machine down to crimp the cap on the bottle, then with your right hand you take it out and with your left hand slip in another bottle, then the same operation. There is a cup in front of the machine to hold caps. After a bottle has been filled you take a cap out of this cup and place it up in the machine with your finger. The cap is to seal the bottle and is the latest invention for pop. It is tin with a cork lining. When this left-hand lever is around on the water valve so as to run water into the bottle, it would be a couple of inches above the bottle and four or five inches out to the side; then you would turn it on around to let the gas out and bring the lever back and crown the bottle. You keep your left hand on that lever to turn it off when the bottle is full. When I began work there was a little guard five inches by seven inches fastened to the head of the machine that works up and down with the head of the machine between the operator and the bottles; that is, between you and the bottles. There was no other guard except that. When I would fill the bottle with my left hand, it would be exposed to the bottle on the other side of the guard from me. When my left hand was in that position for filling the bottle, there was another bottle setting there between my hand and the one being filled. The 5x7 guard did not extend around so as to be between my left hand while filling the bottle and the bottle that was being filled with water. The bottles are filled with carbonated water under a pressure of 60 pounds to the square inch. The bottles sometimes break and fly in all directions--sometimes as far as 30 or 40 feet. The 5x7 guard and the head of the machine would protect me from these flying particles. The pressure on the inside causes the bottles to explode. These bottles were the latest improved bottle and are the ordinary pop bottle. We used a pressure of 60 pounds to the square inch. On the afternoon of July 6th I went to fill a bottle, and in putting the lever here (indicating) on the bottle and running the first water into the bottle a round piece flew out between my hand and guard and cut into my wrist. My left hand was holding the lever on the water valve running the water into the bottle. The bottle was about half full of water, and the balance was gas. My hand was about two inches above the bottle and four or five or six inches to the side. The machine was guarded just as it was when I first started work there. The piece of glass was round, and about the size of a half dollar, and went into my wrist to the bone and out again.”

This witness also testified:

“There was a guard on the market at the time of the injury to be placed around those bottles to prevent the glass flying from breaking bottles. That fits the kind of machine I was working on. It is an automatic guard. It works on the head of the machine. When the foot lever is put down to pull the head of the machine down, that closes up around the bottle so that it would inclose the bottle, so if one would burst to pieces it couldn't get away; it would have to stay there; and you take your foot off the lever and let the head of the machine raise, and that opens up. When the head of the machine is up to where it is when you put the bottles in, the guard is open clear back, and when you put the bottles in, and are ready to fill them, and push your foot down on the lever, and pull the head of the machine down to the bottles to fill it, they come shut of their own account as the head of the machine comes down to the bottle. The guard opens up as the head of the machine raises as you take your foot off. That is a different guard from the one that was on the machine in question. * * * At the time of the accident I had never seen any of these guards advertised. I didn't know of either of these guards at that time, but I thought it might be possible to invent something that would go on there and be a guard. I had never worked on a machine that had a guard of that kind on it. I have had enough experience to know that the guard closes when you work the foot pedal and not when you work that rod with the right hand. I have had enough experience to know you can't close it by working the right hand. It couldn't possibly be connected by any kind of a device to the left-hand lever. It could be attached to the foot lever with a rod running down through there through the base of the machine.”

[1] With these premises we go now to the propositions relied upon for a reversal. Our factory act provides that:

“It shall be the duty of the owner, agent, superintendent or other person having charge of any manufacturing or other establishment where machinery is used, to furnish and supply or cause to be furnished and supplied therein, belt shifters or other safe mechanical contrivances for the purpose of throwing belts on and off pulleys, and, wherever possible, machinery therein shall be provided with loose pulleys; all saws, planers, cogs, gearing, belting, shafting, set screws and machinery of every description therein shall be properly guarded.” Code Supp. § 4999a2.

Under this section we have held contrary to defendant's assumption in argument that the statute is mandatory, and that such machinery as that in question must be guarded, and that if it is not guarded, or if the guard is inadequate, or insufficient, this makes a prima facie case for the plaintiff; and the burden is upon the defendant to show that no guard was practical which was reasonably calculated to prevent accidents. O'Connell v. Smith, 141 Iowa, 1, 118 N. W. 266;Kimmerle v. Dubuque Co., 154 Iowa, 42, 134 N. W. 434.

There is a conflict in the decisions upon the proposition, but the doctrine already approved by us has support in other jurisdictions and is evidently the only one which gives life and efficacy to the statute. See Caspar v. Lewin, 82 Kan. 604, 109 Pac. 657, 49 L. R. A. (N. S.) 526, and the authorities cited in Kimmerle's Case, supra.

[2] II. Defendant offered to show what other bottlers did, what the...