Steiler v. Hart
| Decision Date | 28 April 1887 |
| Citation | 65 Mich. 644,32 N.W. 875 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | STEILER, by his Next Friend, v. HART and another. |
Error to superior court of Detroit.
Stewart & Galloway, for plaintiff.
Moore & Moore, for defendants and appellants.
Plaintiff recovered judgment in the superior court of Detroit in an action of trespass on the case, based upon the negligence of defendants. The declaration alleges that on the twenty-fourth day of September, A.D.1883, plaintiff was in the employment of defendants, straightening the "temples" of spectacles at a large machine, namely a press run by steam-power; the plaintiff being at such time but a young boy, to-wit, 13 years of age, and incapable of sufficiently realizing the danger he was undergoing in working around such machinery. It then alleges that the press was so constructed that a short covered shaft at the upper portion of the press was continually revolving, and only worked the upper plate of the press, when geared, through a treadle for the foot of the operator, namely, when the operator pushed down with his foot upon the treadle, and that the upper plate would cease to move up and down upon the lower stationary plate when the operator's foot should be removed from the treadle; and it became and was the duty of the defendants in the premises to place no one of such tender years as the plaintiff at such perilous task, to provide something suitable for the operator of said press with which to clean off the plates of the same; and it was also the duty of defendants to keep such machine in proper running order so that the upper plate of the said press would not descend upon the lower plate or standard unless caused so to do by the operator placing his foot upon the treadle or foot-piece. The breach of duty alleged is the assigning plaintiff, being of such tender years, to such perilous task; neglecting to provide anything with which to clean the plates of the press; neglecting to provide suitable machinery for the task at which the plaintiff was employed, to-wit, a machine in which the upper plate would not move up or down unless caused so to do by the operator's pressing upon the treadle, by reason of which breach of duty plaintiff's right hand became crushed and utterly ruined by being caught between the two plates of the press while cleaning the same with his hand, nothing having been provided him with which to clean the same, his foot not being on the treadle or foot-piece at the time, and the upper plate having come down suddenly upon his hand, then between the two plates, after the upper plate had ceased to move for a long time, and after he had removed his foot from the foot-piece; that, had defendants observed and performed their said duty, the plaintiff would not have been injured, which injury happened without any attending fault or neglect on the part of the plaintiff. The circuit judge certifies that the substance of all the testimony which was submitted to the jury is returned in the bill of exceptions.
Plaintiff was sworn, and testified in his own behalf. He testified that he was first employed by defendants to punch holes in spectacle temples on a small press, and after about a month he was put to work upon the big press, worked by steam, for straightening temples. He had worked on this press about 60 days, when he received the accident complained of. At this time he was a little over 14 years old. The temples, when straightened, are more or less covered with oil; so that, after using the press awhile, the oil has to be wiped from the stamps. This is done by removing the foot from the treadle, when the press ceases to move, and the oil is then wiped off with some "waste." The space through which the upper die moves, is about two and one-half inches, and the number of movements each minute is about 35. The up and down motion is produced by an eccentric revolved by a band communicating with a shaft. The machine is thrown in gear by placing the foot upon the treadle, and pressing down. When the pressure is removed, the machine is thrown out of gear automatically. Plaintiff testifies that he had wiped the oil from between the dies as often as 25 times a day while he was running the press. When he commenced work, he was instructed in its use. The foreman showed him how to clean, and called his attention to the necessity of stopping the machine before cleaning it, and plaintiff knew it would be improper to clean the machine while in motion. He knew how to start and stop the machine, and how to perform his work upon it. He testified that he stopped the machine, and was in the act of wiping the oil from between the dies, when it suddenly started, and the die came down and crushed his hand. He was caught and held fast until succored by some one in the shop, who threw off the belt, and the wheel back, which released him, and he did not know and could not tell how the accident happened, any more than that the die came down upon his hand.
No defect was shown in the machine, and both parties were agreed that the press could not be operated without the treadle being pressed down so as to project the clutch from the idler into the band-wheel. To explain how the accident might have happened, the plaintiff produced a machinist of several years' experience, who testified that the upper die being moved by an eccentric, and the weight of the die being 30 pounds or more, if the machine stopped in a certain position, and was not properly oiled, it would be liable to start at any moment; that, if the die happened to be up, the throw of the eccentric at the top past the dead point, and anywhere on its downward stroke, it would take but a small amount...
To continue reading
Request your trial