St. Louis Stave & Lumber Co. v. Sawyers

• Citation: 119 S.W. 830
• Parties: ST. LOUIS STAVE & LUMBER CO. v. SAWYERS.
• Decision Date: 17 May 1909
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

119 S.W. 830

ST. LOUIS STAVE & LUMBER CO. v. SAWYERS.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

May 17, 1909.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Crawford County; Jeptha H. Evans, Judge.

Action by Claude Sawyers, a minor, by his next friend A. J. Sawyers, against the St. Louis Stave & Lumber Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

On the 17th day of September, 1907, appellee was injured while working for appellant at its stave mill in Crawford county, Ark. At the time of his injury appellee had been working at the mill about two weeks. He was an illiterate young man, about 19 years of age, and had never worked around machinery like that before. He was around another stave mill two or three weeks, but worked out in the woods. At the mill where he was injured there was a line shaft about 5 feet from the ground, fastened to the ceiling. There was no flooring to the shed, and the shavings were piled up so that they were six inches higher than the ground. The shaft was about two inches in diameter, and had about six pulleys on it, over which the bands ran that moved the machines, planers, joiners, equalizers, etc. The shaft and machines were run by steam. The line shaft was rusty, and there was no box around it. The lace in a planer belt broke. The belt was made of rubber and cotton, and was about four inches wide. It had been in use a little over two weeks, and was greatly worn and frazzled. The ravelings were about as big as a finger, extended all over the belt, and were twisted together. The belt (single) was some 12 feet in length. It had been broken several times, and had broken a time or two on the day of the injury. It had been laced together with old bed ticking. When this belt to the planer broke, the superintendent was not present. But when he came back, he directed that the belt be laced and put back on the planer. One of the employés called his attention to the fact that it was not fit for use, but he ordered it laced, and directed appellee to help lace it. Appellee worked under the directions of the superintendent, and it was his duty at that time to help lace the belt. The line shaft was revolving fast. All the other machinery, except the planer where this belt had broken, was running. When the superintendent ordered the belt to be laced, it was not then on the line shaft, but an employé put it on the line shaft, and after he had done so the foreman told appellee to help lace it. While the appellee was holding the belt for his fellow servant to lace, the ravelings on the belt caught his right hand and caught the line shaft, throwing him over, and over the line shaft, until it jerked his right arm off at the elbow. Appellee did not know what effect the ravelings would have on the line shaft, did not know that they were liable to catch on the line shaft and jerk him up there. Neither the superintendent, nor any one else, had told him anything about the machinery. He did not know there was any danger in going around the line shaft at the time he was fixing the belt. The superintendent knew that, if the belt came off the pulley and down on the line shaft, the ravelings were likely to take hold of it. He did not tell appellee that if they let the belt get down on the line shaft, the ravelings were likely to get caught on it. He knew that appellee was a very "green, ignorant boy when he came to the mill to work." On behalf of appellant there was testimony tending to show that appellee had been instructed in the work of mending and lacing belts; that he had been instructed to hold the belt while it was being laced clear of the pulleys and the line shaft, and that when it was so held, there was no danger; that appellee was already assisting to lace the belt when the superintendent returned; and that the superintendent did not order him to assist in lacing the belt. Appellee sued appellant for damages resulting from his injury, alleging negligence in the following particulars: In allowing and permitting the line shaft to revolve while the belt was being laced; in not boxing the line shaft; in maintaining said line shaft too low for safety; in permitting shavings, etc., to accumulate under said line shaft; and in permitting the edges of said belt to become worn and raveled. The answer of defendant, appellant, denied all the allegations of the complaint as to negligence, and charged the truth to be that Claude Sawyers, appellee, was of sufficient age and experience to know and appreciate the dangers incident to his employment; that he had been fully instructed in regard to same by the defendant, and that, knowing and appreciating the dangers incident to his employment, he assumed the risk thereof; that said Sawyers was injured while engaged, on his own motion and outside of the line of his duty, in voluntarily performing the work of another employé; and that in so doing he assumed the risk incident to the doing of said work; and that the said Sawyers, while so engaged, was injured by reason of his own negligence and want of proper care and attention; and that said injury was in no wise brought about or superinduced by any fault, act, or omission of the defendant.

Appellant objected to the giving of the following instructions:

"(3) Among the nonassignable duties of the defendant to the plaintiff are the duty to use ordinary care to furnish him a reasonably safe place in which to perform the duties of his employment, and reasonably safe means, instruments, and appliances with which to perform his duties, and to use ordinary care to maintain them in that condition, and also, if plaintiff was young and inexperienced, and for this reason did not know of or appreciate the danger of his immediate employment, if any, and defendant knew, or ought to have known, this in the exercise of ordinary care on its part, then it was defendant's duty to instruct him as to both latent and patent dangers, so that, as far as might be by proper care on his own part, the plaintiff would be enabled to perform his duties in safety to himself. If defendant failed to properly discharge any of these duties to plaintiff in so far as they are covered by the allegations of negligence in this case, and by reason of such neglect or failure of defendant plaintiff was injured while using due care himself, and in the line of his duties, and when he had not assumed the risk, then defendant is liable in this action. If defendant performed its duty to plaintiff as above indicated, or if plaintiff was himself wanting in ordinary care for his own safety, contributing to his injury, or if plaintiff had assumed the risk, in either case you should find for the defendant."

"(6) If defendant's foreman ordered plaintiff into a place of danger, to aid in fixing the belt, and plaintiff by reason of youth and inexperience did not know of and appreciate the danger of the situation, and defendant knew this, or ought in the exercise of ordinary care on its part to have known it, then it was defendant's duty to warn him of his danger, so that, as far as might be by proper care on his part, plaintiff could perform his duty in safety to himself. If the defendant failed in this respect, and plaintiff, while exercising due care for his own safety, by such failure suffered the injuries sued for, then plaintiff should recover in this action."

"(12) If plaintiff was in the employment of the defendant, and his usual work was to run the equalizer, and at the time of the injury plaintiff was holding the belt of the planer for Boyd Smith to lace it, and defendant's superintendent was present and knew that plaintiff was holding the belt and acquiesced therein, then you may consider this in determining whether or not at the time of the injury plaintiff was engaged in the line of his duties in the service of defendant, in a place of danger outside the duties of his employment."

The court refused the following requests for instructions:

"(2) If you find from the...