Redmond v. Delta Lumber Co.

• Decision Date: 26 July 1893
• Citation: 96 Mich. 545,55 N.W. 1004
• Parties: REDMOND v. DELTA LUMBER CO.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

96 Mich. 545
55 N.W. 1004

REDMOND
v.
DELTA LUMBER CO.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

July 26, 1893.

Error to circuit court, Schoolcraft county; Joseph H. Steere, Judge.

Action by Edmond G. Redmond against the Delta Lumber Company for personal injuries caused by defendant's negligence. From a judgment entered on the verdict of a jury in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

[55 N.W. 1004]

J. D. Turnbull, for appellant, cited Seybolt v. Railroad Co., 95 N. Y. 562;Caldwell v. Steamboat Co., 47 N. Y. 291;Edgerton v. Railroad Co., 39 N. Y. 227;Curtis v. Railroad Co., 18 N. Y. 534; 16 Amer. & Eng. Enc. Law, 353; Thomp. Neg. 1227; Cooley, Torts, (2d Ed.) 796; Whart. Neg. § 422; Add. Torts, 596; 16 Amer. & Eng. Enc. Law, 449; Holbrook v. Railroad Co., 12 N. Y. 243; Sedg. Dam. (6th Ed.) 752, (592;) 14 Amer. & Eng. Enc. Law, 904; Bridges v. Railway Co., L. R. 6 Q. B. 377, 391; Tuttle v. Railroad Co., 48 Iowa, 236;Cummings v. Furnace Co., 60 Wis. 603, 18 N. W. Rep. 742, and 20 N. W. Rep. 665;Mulcairns v. City of Janesville, 67 Wis. 24, 29 N. W. Rep. 565; Kearney v. Railway Co., L. R. 6 Q. B. 759; Briggs v. Oliver, 35 L. J. Exch. 163; J. Russell Manuf'g Co. v. New Haven Steamboat Co., 50 N. Y. 127, 128; 1 Shear. & R. Neg. §§ 59, 60.

Moore & Moore, C. W. Dunton, and J. W. McMahon, for appellee.

HOOKER, C. J.

The plaintiff was employed to operate a machine called a “jack,” used for drawing logs into defendant's sawmill.

[55 N.W. 1005]

This jack consisted of an endless chain, upon which the logs were held by iron spurs, and was operated by power applied through iron gearing to one of the pulleys upon which the endless chain ran by means of a belt running upon a friction pulley. This belt was loose, and was designed to run the jack when it was tightened, by bringing a third and movable pulley down upon the belt, which was done by pulling down a lever. When the lever was released, the effect was to remove this pulley, thereby loosening the belt, and stopping the machine. The heavier the load upon the jack, the more power was required upon the lever to keep the jack in motion, owing to the tendency of the belt to slip upon the pulley. Logs drawn up by the jack were unloaded upon skids on either side of the jack, and from the skids to the carriages upon which they were sawed. The skids being nearly full, plaintiff drew a log up with the jack, which, falling upon the skids, crowded another log against a log upon the saw carriage, which in some way caused one of the logs to be...