Seltzer v. W. H. Davenport Firearms Co.

• Decision Date: 23 July 1901
• Citation: 49 A. 852,74 Conn. 46
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: SELTZER v. W. H. DAVENPORT FIREARMS CO.

49 A. 852

74 Conn. 46

SELTZER

v. W. H. DAVENPORT FIREARMS CO.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 23, 1901.

Appeal from superior court. New London county; Milton A. Shumway, Judge.

Action by Henry F. Seltzer against the W. H. Davenport Firearms Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Charles F. Thayer, for appellant.

Seneca H. Thresher, for appellee.

HALL, J. The plaintiff, who was employed by the defendant as an elevator boy in its factory where it was engaged in the manufacture of guns, was injured by a flying fragment of an emery wheel, which burst in one of the rooms of the factory. The defendant had purchased the wheel of a manufacturer of high reputation, but no sufficient test had been made of the wheel prior to its shipment to the defendant. The trial court found that "the only reliable mode to test such a wheel was to place it on a shaft, and see it in motion in a protected place, and gradually increase the speed until the desired velocity was attained," and that this was known to the defendant. It was believed by the manufacturer that the wheel was capable of sustaining a strain equal to more than 700 revolutions per minute, and it was made in the same manner as other wheels made by this manufacturer, in use in many large manufactories in this and other countries. The finding states that upon the removal of the wheel from the box, at the defendant's factory, it was examined, and appeared to be without defects of any kind; that it was then placed upon the shaft, and upon the machine called the "emery grinder," and secured in its bearings; that the grinder was belted to the counter shaft, so that the wheel could not exceed COO revolutions per minute, "in order that it might be at all times safe for the use of its employes"; that the defendant's foreman "in charge of the machine" applied the power, and ran it a short time at the highest speed at which it could be run by the machinery as then arranged, while the foreman watched it to see that it was running in its true position; the wheel appeared to him to be evenly balanced, and running properly; the wheel was then stopped, and the foreman made an examination of all nuts and fastenings by which it was secured, and it appeared to be in proper condition; the power was then applied the second time, when almost immediately the wheel burst, and the plaintiff was struck.

It is to be observed that at the time of the accident the wheel was not in use by the defendant's operatives, but was in charge of the defendant's foreman, and was being tested by him, assisted, as indicated by the finding, by a fellow workman, preparatory to being placed in use. The finding says that the defendant's foreman testified that just prior to starting the wheel he notified all persons to leave the room except a fellow workman; that the plaintiff, who, by instruction, was in the room Where the elevator was then at rest, did not hear any notice to leave the room, and did not know that there was any danger attendant upon the starting...