Ross v. Mills

• Decision Date: 28 November 1905
• Citation: 52 S.E. 121,140 N.C. 115
• Parties: ROSS . v. DOUBLE SHOALS COTTON MILLS.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

52 S.E. 121

140 N.C. 115

ROSS .

v.DOUBLE SHOALS COTTON MILLS.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 28, 1905.

1. Negligence — Res Ipsa Loquitur — Effect.

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not relieve plaintiff of the burden of the issue, nor raise a presumption in plaintiff's favor, but merely carries the case to the jury, permitting it to infer negligence and find on all the evidence whether plaintiff has sustained his burden of proof.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 37, Cent. Dig. Negligence, §§ 218, 225, 285.]

2. Master and Servant—Injuries to Servant—Defective Machinery — Evidence — Question for Jury—Res Ipsa Loquitur.

While plaintiff was operating a machine in a cotton mill, it became clogged, and he stopped the machine by shifting the belt to a loose pulley, and attempted to remove the cotton. While so engaged the machine suddenly started from a cause unknown to plaintiff, and he was injured. There • was evidence that the belt shifter fork was wider than the belt, and that this had been corrected by placing a piece of wood in the same, which might have fallen out and permitted the belt to shift to the tight pulley. Held, that the happening of the accident was of itself sufficient evidence of negligence to take the case to the jury, under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 34, Cent. Dig. Master and Servant, § 1003.]

Appeal from Superior Court, Cleveland County; Justice, Judge.

Action by M. C. Ross against the Double Shoals Cotton Mills. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Action for personal injury sustained by plaintiff while operating a lapper in defendant company's mill. Plaintiff introduced Alfred Gilliam, who testified that he was 67 years of age, had worked at defendant's mill since he was 15 and up to two years ago. The lapper was purchased and put in mill six or seven years ago; examined, and found to be very good; nothing wrong with it; was not new. It was a 36-inch lapper, had been taken out of a mill to give place to a 40-inch one. It run very well. The worm gear gave out, and it gave trouble—a good deal first and last. The shaft, the coupling from the evener plates, broke once—was off when left there. The belt shifter fork was wider than the belt, and put on a piece of wood to make it correspond with the width of the belt. Think put the piece of wood next to the tight pulley—am not certain. Have worked in cotton mills 52 years. Was superintendentof defendant mill 32 years. Nothing wrong with the machine. Evener plates under the feed rolls, then the beater bars—two arms or bars. Beater shaft revolves 1, 400 or 1, 500 times a minute. Bars cannot be seen when cap is down—arched cap on hinges. Could not get hurt when cap is down. Worm gear has no connection with beater or belting. If plaintiff got hurt by beater bars, the worm gear could not have affected it. Stop motion rod has no connection with beater bar. Beater bars are stopped by throwing the belt from the tight to the loose pulley by means of the belt shifter. There is no danger of operating machine that know of. The shaft, pulleys, belt, and beater shifter were brought into court, and used by witness in explaining testimony to jury. Plaintiff testified that he was hurt July, 1904, working for defendant Had been a card hand. Ran machine an hour and a half, when it choked down, and belt ran off big pulley. Carded the belt off, and put belt grease on it to prevent belt from running off. Ran five or ten minutes and choked again. Moved the belt shifter, stopped machine, and carried two loads of cotton back to the hopper. Jim Champion came along; went to opposite side and raised cap from beater. "I put my hand over feed roll into beater bars to get cotton out. Machine started by some means, and tore off my arm to my elbow; knocked me numb or paralyzed. Had run lapper three months before I was hurt Belt ran off pulley, which runs beater, when I got hurt. Am certain that I changed belt shifter and stopped machine when it choked, but cannot tell how it started. When I went to unclog it know of nothing that could have put the belt on tight pulley." At the close of the evidence defendant demurred, and moved the court to dismiss the action. Motion allowed. Judgment and appeal.

Webb & Mull and D. F. Morrow, for appellant.

O. F. Mason and Ryburn & Hoey, for appellee.

CONNOR, J. (after stating the case). We did not have a model of the machine or any of its parts before us by which to illustrate the testimony and argument. The plaintiff in the employment of defendant was on the day of the injury operating a lapper in defendant's cotton mill. The motive power was applied by a belt running over a pulley on the machine, attached to another pulley overhead, working upon shafting connected with the power. When it was desired to stop the machine for any purpose, the belt was removed or shifted from the tight to the loose pulley by means of the belt shifter. If the machine became choked with the cotton passing through the beater, and it became necessary to clean it, or remove the cotton, it is stopped by throwing the belt from the tight to the loose pulley; this being done by a shifter. If in proper condition it will remain motionless until the belt is thrown back on to the tight pulley. While machine is in motion, there are parts in which the hand of the operator may be put without injury. There are other parts in which the beater shaft revolves very rapidly. Plaintiff's witness Gilliam says that two years ago, when he left the mill, the lapper was all right and in good condition. The plaintiff says: That on the 11th day of July, 1904, he was operating the lapper. That it became choked, and "the belt ran off the big pulley." That he carded the belt off, and put belt grease on it to prevent belt from running off. In five or ten minutes it choked again. That he stopped the machine with the belt shifter, and carried some cotton back to the hopper. Champion went to the opposite side, raised the cap from the beater, and the plaintiff put his hand into the beater bars to get the cotton out. The machine, by some unknown means, started, and tore his arm off. The plaintiff's witness refers to some defects in parts of the machine, which he says could not have had any connection with the plaintiff's injury. The immediate cause of the injury was that by some means the belt was thrown back on the tight pulley. The only testimony which throws any light on the condition of the belt shifter is that of Gilliam, who says "the belt shifter fork was wider than the belt, and I put on a piece of wood to make it correspond with the width of the belt." There is no suggestion as to what effect, if any, this would have on the movement of the belt.

With the light afforded us, but one of three possible explanations of the unexpected starting of the machine occurs to our minds. Either Champion accidently struck the shifter and threw the belt onto the tight pulley, or the plaintiff, in moving about the machine, did so, or there was some defect in the belt or shifter. It is elementary learning that the defendant is not liable for the movement of the belt, unless, either by the negligent conduct of some employs not a fellow servant, or by some defect in the condition of the shifter, it worked back and threw the belt onto the tight pulley. In this condition of the case, what shall be done? The defendant has charge of the machinery and its operation, except in so far as the plaintiff, in the discharge of his duty, had such charge. The plaintiff is suddenly and unexpectedly caught in the machine, struck dumb, his arm torn off, paralyzed. Conceding that there is no direct evidence of a defect in the machine or any of its parts, is the plaintiff driven to a nonsuit, or may he, upon the doctrine...