Sparks v. Bemis Bros. Bag Co.

• Decision Date: 27 March 1911
• Parties: SPARKS v. BEMIS BROS. BAG. CO.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

114 P. 442

62 Wash. 625

SPARKS v. BEMIS BROS. BAG. CO.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 27, 1911

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Boyd J. Tallman Judge.

Action by Weldon Sparks against the Bemis Brothers Bag Company. From a judgment for plaintiff defendant appeals. Reversed, with instructions.

Farrell Kane & Stratton, for appellant.

Bo. Sweeney, for respondent.

FULLERTON J.

The respondent brought this action against the appellant to recover for personal injuries received by him while in the appellant's employ. The record discloses that the appellant was engaged in the business of manufacturing bags of various sorts for holding grain, flour, and similar products. That in the manufacture of these articles it used a number of machines called presses, capable of doing the combined work of cutting bags from bolts of cloth, printing thereon any matter desired, and folding the cut bag into shapes convenient for handling. The respondent at the time of his injury was employed as an assistant in the operation of these presses. The appellant also had in its employ at this time a machinist, by the name of Buckner, whose duty it was to keep the different machines used in and about the appellant's business in working order. The presses were not all self-feeders, and at the time the respondent was injured the machinist was endeavoring to install on one of them a self-feeding devise. To that end he had dismantled the machine and had fixed thereon a self-feeding device, and for some two weeks prior to the injury he had been using such time as he could spare from his routine work in an endeavor to make the feeder operate successfully. During the course of the work it was necessary to occasionally remove and replace various parts of the press and the machinist would call on some one or another of the workers in the pressroom to assist in running or replacing the heavier parts.

To the accident itself there were only two witnesses, the respondent and the machinist. The respondent testified that after the machinist had been working for some time on the machine on the morning of the accident, he called on the respondent to come and assist him in threading it. The respondent acceded to the request, and in doing so was obliged to get onto a platform and work somewhat over the press, which was then not in motion. He completed the work, but before he got down from the platform the machinist started the press in motion without giving him any warning, and in consequence he was caught in the uncovered gearing of the machine and suffered the loss of the greater part of his hand.

The machinist's version of the transaction is diametrically opposed to that of the respondent. He testifies that the press at that time was practically adjusted; that he had it threaded with the cloth, and was operating it to ascertain if its different parts were timed correctly, stopping it when he found it necessary to make some change in the adjustment, and starting it again when he had the change completed. This process had been going on for some hours when he saw the foreman of the shop and the respondent come up behind the press; that he paid no particular attention to them, as he was busily engaged in his own work. Afterwards he noticed the foreman go away, leaving the respondent...