Sawyer v. Rumford Falls Paper Co.

• Decision Date: 31 May 1897
• Citation: Sawyer v. Rumford Falls Paper Co., 90 Me. 354, 38 A. 318, 60 Am.St.Rep. 260 (Me. 1897)
• Parties: SAWYER v. RUMFORD FALLS PAPER CO.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

38 A. 318

90 Me. 354

SAWYER

v. RUMFORD FALLS PAPER CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

May 31, 1897.

(Official.)

Action by Angus T. Sawyer against the Rumford Falls Paper Company to recover damages resulting from personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff while employed in the defendant company's paper mill at Rumford Falls. At the trial of the case the defendant's counsel moved for a nonsuit, and, the motion being denied, rested upon the evidence already presented. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $4,250. The defendant company filed a general motion that the verdict be set aside as being against law and evidence, and for excessive damages. Overruled on condition.

F. L. Noble and R. W. Crockett, for plaintiff.

G. A. Wilson and H. C. Smyth, for defendant.

WHITEHOUSE, J. The plaintiff obtained a verdict for $4,250 as compensation for personal injuries sustained while employed in the paper mill of the defendant company at Rumford Falls. The case comes up on a motion to have this verdict set aside as against the evidence relating to the question of the defendant's liability, and also because the damages are excessive.

The case was presented to the jury on the testimony of the plaintiff and his witnesses, no testimony being introduced by the defendant.

The accident occurred on the 7th day of December, 1894, while the plaintiff was engaged in the service of the company in the capacity of "third hand" in a gang of four on the No. 2 paper machine in the defendant's mill. At that time he was 20 years old, and had been employed in the mill about 18 months in the aggregate, viz. about 5 months as a helper in setting up machines, about 5 months as a "fourth hand," and about 7 months as "third hand" on the No. 2 machine. The mill was operated day and night, and on the occasion in question he was on the night gang. About 4 o'clock in the morning of December 7th, by reason of the breaking of the dynamo belt, the electric lights by which the mill was lighted were suddenly extinguished, leaving the machine room where the plaintiff was employed, as well as the rest of the mill, in complete darkness. What then happened the plaintiff described in his testimony as follows: "When the light went out I was where the winder is, and I was sitting down with the fourth hand, and the machine tender was down to the wet end, lighting a match once in a while. Six or seven minutes after the light went out the machine tender whistled, and he lighted a piece of paper, and we went down, the fourth hand and I, and he gave me the order to pull the broke the [broken paper] off the second press. So I went, and I stand on that step, and I begun to pull off the broke, and the broke was choked. * * * When I stepped up on that stand I went to pull the broke, and I went to pull it out, and the paper gave way in my hand, and I fell backward, and I went to stop myself from falling, and I went to put my hand on the rod or lever (some call it a rod), and I missed that rod, and I fell, my hand on the top of the felt, and my hand went between the rolls, and it caught my hand here, and you see how it cut it." As the result of the accident the plaintiff lost three fingers and a portion of the forefinger of his left hand, and a portion of the outside of the hand itself.

There was evidence tending to show that the dynamo belt was old and much worn, and, being used in a wet place, its strength had become so impaired that it was no longer suitable for use.

It also appears that, from different causes, the electric lights had frequently been extinguished prior to this time, on an average two or three times a week, and that they had twice been out for a few moments on the night in question before the time when the accident happened. In anticipation of these contingencies, a supply of lanterns had been provided for temporary use while the electric lights were out in the room where the paper machines were located; but for several months prior to December 7, 1894, none of these lanterns appear to have been in existence, and no others had been furnished to take the place of those broken or carried away.

There was, however, on each press of the paper machine, what is termed a "friction clutch," which was used to stop one or more of the presses while the machines were still running, and orders had been given by the superintendent to all of the machine tenders to stop the presses whenever the lights went out and the paper broke in the nighttime. But there was evidence that this order was disobeyed by the machine tender who had charge of the operating of machine No. 2, and had been disobeyed by others prior to that time.

In view of this evidence it is contended for the plaintiff that there was actionable negligence on the part of the defendant company in at least these three particulars: First, the continued use of a defective dynamo belt,...