Stock v. Kern

• Citation: 142 Wis. 219,125 N.W. 447
• Parties: STOCK v. KERN.
• Decision Date: 15 March 1910
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin

142 Wis. 219

125 N.W. 447

STOCK

v.KERN.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

March 15, 1910.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Ashland County; J. K. Parish, Judge.

Action by Louis Stock against G. H. Kern. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

This is an action to recover damages for an injury to plaintiff's right hand, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant. At the time the injury was received, the plaintiff was 28 years old. He had lived on a farm until he was 21, and thereafter had worked one winter in the woods, and, subsequently, had fired in the Glidden Veneer Factory. For five years he had fired in the factory, and when not so busied he worked about the town or in the mill as a laborer. He had worked at a veneer saw in the mill off and on some eight months in all. This was the only machinery, except farm machinery, at which he had worked, prior to the time of the accident. The veneer saw was about 16 inches in diameter. It was used to cut logs into veneer. This was accomplished by putting the log into a vise, when by means of a lever the log and the saw would be brought together and the revolving saw would cut off veneer of the thickness desired.

The defendant's stave mill and millyard were in the entire charge of his foreman, who, on the day previous to that on which plaintiff's injury was received, employed the plaintiff and offered him his choice of several jobs. Plaintiff chose the job of operating a “splitter” machine, which would pay him best. The foreman had known the plaintiff for several years and had worked in the veneer factory with him. Essentially, the splitter consists of a large circular saw, 38 to 40 inches in diameter, mounted upon a framework and connected with the power of the mill so as to revolve toward the operator. The saw projects 18 or 20 inches above the table. Big bolts from the cut-off saw were placed upon the table lengthwise, held firmly by the operator, and pushed by him against the saw. These big bolts, ordinarily 10 or 12 inches in diameter, were to be cut into smaller ones, and the slabs were to be taken off. The smaller bolts thus produced were of various sizes, depending upon the size of the big bolts which were to be split up. Plaintiff went to work on the morning of January 22, 1908. An employé of the defendant, while plaintiff was observing him, cut some of the big bolts in order to show the plaintiff how to operate the splitter saw, and plaintiff then went to work. He had worked for a little over an hour when he took up a tamarack bolt, about 5 1/2 inches in diameter and 13 inches long, to feed it into the saw. He sawed about 1 1/4 inches into the bolt, when it turned and slipped out of his hand. His hand was thrown against the saw. Two fingers were cut off, and a third finger, which was cut into, has become stiffened and cannot be closed.

The complaint alleges negligence on the part of the defendant in several respects. The machine is alleged to have operated defectively by reason of the defective character of the belt by which the machine was connected with the power shafting. It is claimed that the belt slipped on the pulleys, by which power was transmitted to the machine, because of the material of which the belt was made, and also because the belt was too loose, thus causing an irregular movement of the machine. It is also alleged that the saw was operated at too slow a speed, and that this rendered the operation of the saw more difficult and dangerous to the operator and caused his hand to come into contact with the saw. The alleged icy condition of the bolt which plaintiff was cutting and the absence of a guide or a clamp upon the machine are alleged as negligences on the part of the defendant.

The jury found that the plaintiff did not know the safe manner of operating the machine, that he had not been instructed as to such manner of operating it, that the splitter machine was not reasonably safe as equipped with appliances for operation, that the speed of the saw was so slow as to be dangerous, that these various negligences were each a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury, that the...