Stodden v. Anderson & Winter Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 07 May 1908
• Citation: 116 N.W. 116,138 Iowa 398
• Parties: STODDEN v. ANDERSON & WINTER MFG. CO.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

138 Iowa 398

116 N.W. 116

STODDEN

v.ANDERSON & WINTER MFG. CO.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

May 7, 1908.

Appeal from District Court, Clinton County; A. P. Parker, Judge.

Action at law to recover damages for a personal injury. There was a directed verdict in favor of defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.W. E. Russell and Wolfe & Wolfe, for appellant.

Ellis & McCoy, for appellee.

BISHOP, J.

The defendant is a corporation engaged in operating a furniture factory in the city of Clinton, this state. At the time of the accident out of which grew the injury of which complaint is made, plaintiff was in the employ of defendant as a workman in its factory. The accident occurred in connection with the use by plaintiff of a machine called a “joiner,” and the injury consisted in the loss of the fingers of his left hand. As matters of negligence on the part of defendant, it is alleged--stated generally--that the joiner was out of repair, and that it was not furnished with a guard to properly protect the person operating the same from injury. And it is said that the defective condition was not open or visible, and that defendant failed to warn him of the danger. Defendant denied generally, and pleaded an assumption of the risk by plaintiff. The motion for a directed verdict came at the close of plaintiff's evidence, and was based upon the grounds: (a) that negligence on the part of defendant had not been shown; (b) that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence; (c) plaintiff assumed the risk of operating the joiner at the time and in the manner in which he attempted to operate the same. As the correctness of the ruling on the motion must depend upon the facts and circumstances of the accident as disclosed by the evidence, we shall set the same forth briefly as is consistent with a fair statement.

Plaintiff was 25 years old, and had been in the employ of defendant for about 4 months--his work during all that time being the operation of a ripsaw. On the day of the accident, he conceived that the table provided for the saw he was using was not wide enough for convenience in working, and having in mind that the foreman had previously told him to fix anything that was not right, he concluded to widen the same by attaching an additional board. The piece of board selected by him for the purpose was too thick, and, acting on his own motion, he went to the “joiner,” intending by the use thereof to reduce the board in thickness to the extent desired. When he had pushed the board about half way through the machine, it (the board) “kicked up,” to use his expression, and his fingers coming in contact with the knives of the machine were severed from his hand. It seems that the kick up of the board was caused by the setting of the table of the machine--the rear portion thereof being...