Rysdorp v. George Pankratz Lumber Co.

• Decision Date: 07 April 1897
• Citation: 95 Wis. 622,70 N.W. 677
• Parties: RYSDORP v. GEORGE PANKRATZ LUMBER CO.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

95 Wis. 622

70 N.W. 677

RYSDORP

v.GEORGE PANKRATZ LUMBER CO.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

April 7, 1897.

Appeal from circuit court, Oconto county; Samuel D. Hastings, Jr., Judge.

Action by John H. Rysdorp against the George Pankratz Lumber Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

The action is for a personal injury. The defendant owned and operated a sawmill. The plaintiff was foreman of defendant's mill. He was 39 years old, and an experienced millwright and foreman. Defendant's mill was what is called a “single-band sawmill.” The frame which supports the saw, and by which proper tension is given to it, is a hollow cylinder of iron, in two parts. The outer and upper portion, which is called the “sleeve,” covers the upper part of the lower section, and rests upon a shoulder upon such lower section. The saw passes over a wheel or pulley, which is supported by this cylinder, and around another similar wheel, which is beneath the floor of the mill. In order to give proper tension to the saw, the upper or sleeve portion of the cylinder, with the pulley and shafting, is raised by means of a jackscrew. This jackscrew works in a nut in the lower end of the sleeve. It is worked by a lever. The sleeve, with its burden, weighs about three tons. There is a slot in the lower end of the sleeve some 18 inches in length and several inches in width. When the sleeve is raised, a space is opened into the cylinder above the end of the lower portion through which a man's arm can be thrust. This slot was intended to give space for levers or bars connecting with appliances within the cylinder for the regulation of the tension to pass. In the base of the lower section of the cylinder were what are called “manholes,” for the purpose of admitting the hand for whatever needful purpose of adjusting weights on the weight rod or other appliances within the cylinder. This was a perfectly safe place for the introduction of the hand for such a purpose. The plaintiff was acquainted with this machinery, and the purpose of these holes. On the morning of the accident, when plaintiff came into the mill, he found two men at the lever, trying to turn the jackscrew, in order to put tension on the saw. Complaint was made that it worked hard. Some one suggested that the weights were caught inside the cylinder. Plaintiff at once put his hand through the slot, and found the weight rod free. He called out that the weights were not caught. The men surged upon the lever. The sleeve fell, and the plaintiff's right hand was severed from his arm. The strain upon the screw had broken the flange from the nut, and taken away its support from the sleeve. There was a special verdict, which finds (1) that the nut was cracked and broken prior to the time of plaintiff's accident; (2) that with the nut so cracked and broken the machine was not reasonably safe for use in the mill; (3) that the defendant could have discovered this unsafe condition of the machine by the exercise of ordinary care; (4) that the plaintiff could not have discovered this unsafe condition of the machinery by the exercise of ordinary care; (5) that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff; and (6) damages assessed at $8,000. Judgment was entered on this verdict in favor of the plaintiff, from which the defendant appeals.E. C. Eastman, for appellant.

F. J. Hamilton and Greene, Vroman & Fairchild, for respondent.

NEWMAN, J. (after stating the facts).

Two principal errors are claimed: (1) That the special verdict is insufficient to support the judgment; and (2) that the evidence fails to establish defendant's negligence. The criticism on the verdict is that it fails to find that the unsafe condition of the mill was negligence, or that it caused plaintiff's accident. It is elementary...