Rothe v. Barrett Manuf'g Co.

• Decision Date: 24 June 1897
• Parties: ROTHE v. BARRETT MANUF'G CO.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

96 Wis. 615

71 N.W. 1034

ROTHE

v.BARRETT MANUF'G CO.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

June 24, 1897.

Appeal from circuit court, Rock county; John R. Bennett, Judge.

Action by Anton Rothe, by his guardian, against S. E. Barrett Manufacturing Company. Judgment of nonsuit, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Action for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by negligence on the part of the defendant. Defendant owned and operated a straw-board factory. It purchased straw from one Hansel, to be delivered by him at the factory, and put through a cutting machine. Plaintiff was employed by Hansel to aid in taking straw from loaded wagons, and putting it through the cutting machine. It required two persons to do the work,--one to pitch straw from the load to a straw carrier, by which the material was conveyed to a table; then it was pushed by the second man into revolving rolls by which it was carried to knives behind such rolls, which cut it up fine. The machinery of the straw cutter was of the ordinary kind. The knives were, as usual, hid from view by the rolls and the covering over the same. The feeder, in doing his work, was required to stand at the side of the table, and with a short, pointed stick, about six inches long, grasped in the left hand, push the straw toward the rolls by putting the stick from time to time down through the straw as it lay on the table, and then move it along till the rolls would engage it, and carry it through to the knives. Plaintiff, while doing this work, got his fingers caught between the rolls, whereby his arm was drawn in and destroyed. The negligence complained of was that plaintiff was an inexperienced boy, to the knowledge of the defendant, and that it neglected to inform him of the dangers attending the work of feeding the cutter, and to furnish him a stick of the proper length to shove the straw along with. Defendant interposed as an answer a general denial. At the close of plaintiff's evidence the court granted a nonsuit, and from the judgment thereupon entered this appeal was taken. Affirmed.Feltiers, Jeffris & Fifield, for appellant.

C. H. Van Alstine, for respondent.

MARSHALL, J. (after stating the facts).

The grounds for the nonsuit, we apprehend, in the main were: First, that the plaintiff was injured through his own carelessness; second, that no actionable negligence on the part of the defendant was shown; third, that the boy was a servant of Hansel, and that, if there was any negligence in setting him at work without furnishing him a proper stick for use in pushing the straw into the rolls, or without instructing him in regard to the dangers attending the employment, it was the fault of Hansel, and not of the defendant. Either of these grounds was sufficient to justify the nonsuit. The young man appears to have possessed average intelligence for a person of his years. At least the evidence does not show that the defendant was apprised to the contrary before the accident. Therefore it had a right to assume that the boy was possessed of the usual faculties ordinarily developed. In short, that he was a person of ordinary common sense for one of his years, and that he would exercise such care to avoid the dangers which were visible,...