Sjogren v. Hall
| Decision Date | 09 April 1884 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | SJOGREN v. HALL. |
The proprietors of mills, or places where machinery is used, are not bound to provide against every possible accident that can happen, the probability of which is not suspected by either the proprietors or employes until it occurs.
The defendants herein were not bound to protect the revolving wheel between the arms of which the plaintiff's leg was crushed; the occurrence was an accident very unlikely to happen, and not anticipated by either party, though it appeared afterwards how it could have been avoided.
Error to Muskegon.
Cook, De Long & Fellows, for plaintiff.
Smith Nims, Hoyt & Erwin, Keating & Dickerman, and Blair Kingsley for defendants and appellants.
This is an action to recover damages for an injury which the plaintiff claims to have received through the negligence of the defendants. In the circuit court the plaintiff recovered a large verdict. The material facts are the following:
The defendants are joint owners of a steam saw-mill at Muskegon. In September, 1882, three of the defendants were operating the mill, and it is claimed that the fourth was so interested in the results of the business as to be jointly liable with the others for negligent management. A large force of hands is employed in the mill when it is in operation. It stands with one end to the lake, and the logs are taken directly from the water to the log deck. The log-way for this purpose is an inclined trough-shaped way, in the bottom of which runs an endless chain, with spikes upon it, which take hold upon the log and carry it up the trough to a spike roller, which catches it and rolls it to one side on the log deck. The chain and the spiked roller are moved and controlled by a large iron gearing-wheel, or bull-wheel, at the upper end of the log-way. The wheel gearing has a lever attached, which is operated by a man in charge, who throws the wheel in and out of gear at pleasure, and moves or stops the logs as occasion may require. It sometimes happens that a crooked log, in coming up, will roll to one side or the other, and that the man in charge will need assistance to bring the log back to its place. When he does so, he calls for help, and this help is furnished by some one employed on the same floor. The bull-wheel is a heavy iron wheel, about 38 inches in diameter. Its speed is about 15 revolutions to the minute, and it runs within an inch or so of the bridge-tree which supports it. The bridge-tree on the side where the injury occurred is 10 inches in width, and at the time of the injury there was a box at the side of it, and of the same height, which gave 10 inches additional width. The center of the shaft of the wheel sat a few inches above the bridge-tree, so that the wheel was more than half above it. The wheel was entirely uncovered. The man in charge stood partially behind the wheel and above it.
The injury occurred September 12, 1882. The plaintiff, who was 18 years of age, had been at work in the service of the defendants, who were operating the mill, and had been employed on the log deck for four weeks or so at that time. His business was to catch the sawed lumber from the carriers and place it where it should be required. While working there he had been called two or three times to assist the man at the bull-wheel in bringing a log back to its place, and had given the required aid. In the afternoon of the day named he was called to give assistance again, and he went with his cant hook, stepped upon the box by the side of the bridge tree, reached over the wheel, and drew the log to its place. The wheel was then standing still, but as the plaintiff turned to go back to his work the wheel was started up. The man in charge of it was not at the time looking at the plaintiff, but immediately he heard a cry, and turning saw the plaintiff's foot in the wheel. He threw the wheel out of gear instantly, but the plaintiff's limb was found to be so badly crushed as to require amputation above the knee. How the accident occurred is not well explained, The plaintiff appears to have slipped as he turned about, but no one seems to understand why this should have brought his foot into the bull-wheel.
The plaintiff relies for a recovery upon the negligence of the defendants in leaving the wheel uncovered. It was shown on the trial that at a very...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walsh v. Winston Bros. Co.
... ... Mo.App. 300; Schultz v. Pacific Ry. Co., 36 Mo. 13; ... Koontz v. C. R. I. & P. R. Co., 65 Ia. 224, 54 Am ... Rep. 5, 21 N.W. 577; Sjogren v. Hall, 53 Mich. 274, ... 18 N.W. 812; McKee v. C. R. I. & P. R. Co., 83 Ia. 616, 50 ... N.W. 209, 13 L. R. A. 817.) ... "The ... ...
-
Caillier v. New Orleans Ry. & Light Co.
...or anticipated danger. New Orleans & N. E. R. Co. vs. McEwen & Murray, 49 La.Ann. 1184, 1196, 22 So. 675, 38 L. R. A. 134; Sjogren vs. Hall, 53 Mich. 274, 18 N.W. 812; Ball vs. Middlesboro Town & Lands Co. (Ky.) 24 L. Rep. 114, 68 S.W. 6; Groarke vs. Laemmle, 56 A.D. 61, 67 N.Y.S. 409; Lane......
-
The Lafayette Carpet Co. v. Stafford
... ... 654; ... Schroeder v. Michigan, etc., Co., 56 Mich ... 132, 22 N.W. 220; Coombs v. N. B. Cordage ... Co., 102 Mass. 572, Sjogren v. Hall, ... 53 Mich. 274, 18 N.W. 812; Palmer v ... Harrison, 57 Mich. 182, 23 N.W. 624; Young ... v. Burlington, etc., Co., 79 Iowa ... ...
-
Hewitt v. Flint & P.M.R. Co.
...33 Mich. 133; McGinnis v. Bridge Co., 49 Mich. 466, 13 N.W. 819; Richards v. Rough, 53 Mich. 212, 18 N.W. 785; Sjogren v. Hall, 53 Mich. 274, 18 N.W. 812; Batterson v. Railway Co. 53 Mich. 125, 18 N.W. Railway Co. v. Londergan, 7 N.E. 55. The defendant in this case, when it took the plainti......