Suchomel v. Maxwell

• Decision Date: 03 June 1909
• Citation: 240 Ill. 231,88 N.E. 558
• Parties: SUCHOMEL v. MAXWELL et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

240 Ill. 231

88 N.E. 558

SUCHOMEL

v.MAXWELL et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 23, 1909.

Rehearing Denied June 3, 1909.

Appeal from Appellate Court, First District, on Appeal from Circuit Court, Cook County; R. S. Tuthill, Judge.

Action for personal injuries by Frank Suchomel against James Maxwell and others.A judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the Appellate Court, and defendants appeal.Affirmed.

F. J. Canty and J. C. M. Clow, for appellants.

Joseph Sabath and Lawrence W. Potter(Quin O'Brien, of counsel), for appellee.

This is an appeal by James Maxwell and Henry B. Maxwell, copartners doing business as Maxwell Bros., from a judgment of the Appellate Court for the First district affirming a judgment for the sum of $5,000 recovered by Frank Suchomel against appellants, in the circuit court of Cook county, in an action on the case for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by him through the negligence of appellants while he was in their employ.The declaration in two counts charges that defendants were negligent in failing to maintain in a proper condition a certain rotary saw at which appellee was directed to work, in that said saw was not provided with a hood or apron to prevent pieces of wood thrown by the saw striking the operator; that the appellants were fully aware of its defective condition, and of the dangers incident to its operation; that on the day prior to the time of the injury, a foreman of appellants, upon the complaint of appellee in regard to the condition of the saw, promised to repair the same by supplying a hood or apron within a reasonable time; and that appellee, relying on said promise, in the exercise of due care, continued in the operation of said saw until the following day, when, by reason of the absence of such hood or apron, the accident occurred.To the declaration appellants interposed the general issue.At the close of all the evidence the court denied the appellants' motion for a peremptory instruction.After the return of the verdict appellants' motion for a new trial was overruled.Appellants, who were engaged in the lumber business in the city of Chicago, operated at their plant a number of machines for sawing and planing lumber.Among these was a rotary ripsaw, which appellee was operating at the time he was injured.In the operation of this ripsaw the operator stood at the west side of a table 3 1/2 feet in height, through the top of which the saw extended two or three inches, revolving toward the operator.The saw had a self-feeding device, and the boards were fed into it from the west.As it revolved, sawdust, slivers, and splinters from the board being sawed would be thrown from the saw in the direction of the operator.About a week before the accident happened, appellee was directed to leave the planer where he had been employed and begin work on the saw, and he did so.A few days later he complained to Joseph Havorka, alleged to have been his foreman, about the slivers and splinters flying in his face, and asked him to have the saw covered.Havorka said that he would have it fixed.During the forenoon of the day of the accident, conditions remaining unchanged, appellee complained again.Havorka assured him that the saw would be fixed, and he continued at work.Thereafter, and before the noon hour arrived, a splinter or piece of wood, presumably thrown by the saw from the board appellee was then sawing, struck him in his right eye and the sight of that eye was thereby entirely destroyed.When the injury occurred, appellee was standing on the west side of the table, within two feet of the edge of the saw nearest to him,...