Roy Lumber Co. v. Donnelly

Decision Date14 June 1907
Citation103 S.W. 255
PartiesROY LUMBER CO. v. DONNELLY.
CourtKentucky Court of Appeals

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jessamine County.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by Thomas Donnelly against the Roy Lumber Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

John H Welch and O'Neal & O'Neal, for appellant.

Robt. Harding, W. M. Watts, E. B. Hoover, and Greene & Van Winkle for appellee.

NUNN J.

Appellee a boy 16 years of age, was in the employment of appellant in its planing mill. In a room of the mill was located three machines, which were run by an engine located in an adjoining room. A swinging circular saw broke loose from its attachments in the room where appellee was at work, swung out into the room, struck him, and severed one of his arms. This saw was 30 inches in diameter, and was what is known as a "slab saw" or machine, and was swinging from a point in the top of the building, and under which was a narrow table, and through the center of the table was an open space in which the saw revolved when in operation. Two iron shafts attached to the center of the saw ran to the ceiling, and were fastened so that the saw could be pulled from the back of the table by the hand of the operator, through the open space to the front of it, and, when released, a 75-pound iron ball and chain pulled it back to the rear of the table. When this ball and chain were detached from the saw, and it permitted to hang perpendicular, it extended out in front of the table, according to the evidence, one-half of its width, and, when pulled back and released suddenly from the ball and chain, it would swing out into the room, through the space in the table, from three to five feet. Over the teeth, or, rather, over one-half of the teeth, there was an iron shield, about one inch wide and covering one-half of the side of the saw, which made it impossible for the operator to come in contact with the teeth so long as the saw was properly hung and held in its proper place by the ball and chain. When sawing, the operator stood to the left of the saw, and took hold of the handle of it, pulled it forward into the open space across which the lumber was placed; part of the teeth being below the table in the open space, and part above it, covered by the iron shield, so none of the teeth were exposed, except the ones that came in contact with the lumber. At the time of the injury, according to appellee's testimony, he was in front of this table, and from three to five feet from it, with his back turned to the saw, engaged in tying up some bundles of kindling wood for appellant, which was being manufactured by another machine in front of him. This slab saw was not being used at the time of the injury, nor for a few minutes before, but was held back to the rear of the table by the ball and chain. The other machines were being run by the engine which also made the circular, or slab, saw revolve. According to Donnelly's testimony, he was bending over his work, with his back to this table and saw, when some one gave a cry of alarm, by reason of which he started to turn, and the circular saw, which had broken loose from its ball and chain, swung out four or five feet beyond the front of the table, striking and tearing his left arm, shaving his left breast and cutting his left cheek, and left his arm hanging by a strip of skin on the front of it, which was necessarily amputated at once. His contentions are that appellant is liable to him in damages for the injuries received for the following reasons: "First. That the saw broke loose and swung out into the room where he was because of the defective attachment of the ball and chain to the saw in the rear of the table. Second. That the slab machine did not have the necessary appliances and guards upon it to prevent the saw from swinging out into the room, and without them it was dangerous and perilous for any one to be in that portion of the room."

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Brown v. Weathers
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • 7 February 1933
    ...it appears to have been prejudicial to the party complaining. Irvine v. Greenway, 220 Ky. 388, 295 S. W. 445; Roy Lumber Co. v. Donnelly (Ky.) 103 S.W. 255, 31 Ky. Law Rep. 601; C. & O.R.R. Co. v. Perkins, 127 Ky. 110, 105 S.W. 148; Robinson v. L. & N.R.R. Co., 160 Ky. 235, 169 S.W. 831; L.......
  • Magnolia Paper Co. v. Duffy
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 14 April 1915
    ...588; Railway v. Morrissey, 177 Ill. 376, 52 N. E. 299; Hosic v. Railway, 75 Iowa, 683, 37 N. W. 963, 9 Am. St. Rep. 518; Roy Lumber Co. v. Donnelly (Ky.) 103 S. W. 255. Even though instrumentalities are the same as those used by all others in the same line of business, it is held in Texas t......
  • Faulkner v. Gatliff Coal Co.
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • 12 March 1929
    ... ... not remaining in the place which was provided for him ... Appellant relies on the case of Roy Lumber Co. v ... Donnelly, 103 S.W. 255, 31 Ky. Law Rep. 601. In that ... case a swinging circular saw broke loose from its position ... and swung into ... ...
  • Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Saulsberry
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • 18 June 1907

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT