Thompson v. Southern Lumber Co.

• Decision Date: 20 May 1912
• Citation: 148 S.W. 537,104 Ark. 196
• Parties: THOMPSON v. SOUTHERN LUMBER COMPANY
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

148 S.W. 537

104 Ark. 196

THOMPSON v. SOUTHERN LUMBER COMPANY

Supreme Court of Arkansas

May 20, 1912

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Appeal from Bradley Circuit Court; Henry W. Wells, Judge; affirmed.

STATEMENT BY THE COURT.

This suit was instituted by Mattie Thompson in her own right as widow and as next friend of Pebble, Vertie and Tom Thompson children and only heirs at law of Tom Thompson, deceased against the Southern Lumber Company, to recover damages for the death of Thompson, alleged to have resulted by reason of the negligence of the appellee company. The complaint alleged, in substance, that Tom Thompson was an employee of the defendant, assisting in the operation of its mill; that one of his duties was to attend a piece of machinery commonly known as a conveyor, to which was attached a revolving shaft with pulley, driving belt, cogs and chains. The use of the conveyor was to carry away the refuse or small bits of timber incident to the sawing of logs and the manufacture of lumber; that defendant negligently permitted the conveyor to become clogged or overloaded, thereby causing a greater strain on the belt attached to the pulley than it could bear or resist, and for the same reason produced a greater strain upon the cogs and conveyor chains than was proper; that defendant was also negligent in permitting the belt used under such conditions, when the same or a large portion thereof was defective and insufficient by reason of being too old and too worn to withstand the strain and tension to which it was subjected; that by reason of this negligence the belt attached to the pulley broke and recoiled upon the said Thompson with such force as to entangle his body and throw it upon a rapidly revolving shaft to which the pulley was attached, causing the body to be so rapidly revolved around the shaft and to be so violently hurled therefrom as to tear and wrench the right leg from the body at the hip; that as a result of such injuries Thompson died; that plaintiffs had suffered pecuniary damage by reason of his death in the sum of $ 20,000, for which judgment was asked.

The defendant answered, admitting that Thompson was employed in the capacity alleged, but denied all the allegations as to negligence, and set up in defense contributory negligence and assumption of risk.

The testimony adduced by the appellants tended to establish the allegations of their complaint.

A witness, who was the foreman of the appellee, testified substantially as follows: Thompson had been in the employ of the appellee in different capacities about the mill for four or five years. At the time he was killed he was millwright. His duties were to keep the mill in general repair and the machinery in proper condition for working. A millwright is considered a superior employee for the reason that he possesses enough ability to understand machinery and repair and put in operation things that are necessary to be put in operation. He keeps in repair everything. It was his duty, among other things, to see that all belts are in proper repair. Thompson had been working seven days as millwright when he was killed. He was killed between 8 and 9 o'clock in the morning. The mill had been in operation since 7 o'clock.

The witness describes the machinery where Thompson was killed and the manner in which he was killed as follows: "He was near the line shaft which had a pulley that run the driving pulley that drove the gear and the main conveyor from the sawmill. The principal line shaft where Thompson was killed is the shaft by which all other machinery is driven. The power of the engine is applied directly to this shaft, and there is a counter shaft which is operated by a belt from the main shaft. The pulley on the main shaft is fourteen feet from the center of the pulley on the counter shaft, one being sixteen inches in diameter and the other sixty inches respectively. Mr. Thompson was engaged, at the time he met his death, in assisting me in putting the belt on these pulleys. He was holding the end of the belt on the revolving pulley, and was about thirteen feet from me, and was on the side of the line of main shaft next to me, standing on the opposite side of the belt. He was on one side at one end, and I on the other side at the other end, the belt being between us. One of the conveyor chains had broken, and had wound itself around the sprocket that pulls these chains. I gave instructions to the men above to catch the refuse and slabs and hold them up on the platform of the conveyor and not throw them any faster than was necessary. I went back with Mr. Thompon to assist in this work, and we took the chain out. We unwound the chain from the sprocket and put it back in position. We unfastened the teeth of the small pinion that drives the power gear, and then went to work and took off the pinion and put on another and went up and fastened the chain. We always fasten the broken chain to the sound chain by its side. In order to fasten it, we belted the pulleys and started the mill up. We pulled it (the broken chain) twenty or thirty feet, and the fastening came loose; then it became necessary to throw the belt, and we did so. Mr. Thompson, Quimby and myself went upstairs again to fasten the chain. We fastened the broken chain with a chain, then we went back down to the lower part of the mill hurriedly. Mr. Thompson proceeded in the discharge of his duties in adjusting the pulleys. We picked up the belt and placed it on the pulley. He was holding the belt up there on the pulley, and I picked up my end of the belt and placed it on the wheel and got myself in a position to belt it. The wheel was about five inches in diameter. The first time I made the effort, it failed to belt the pulley. It ran off and got on the shaft, and Mr. Thompson picked it up and laid it on the pulley. I stood there and waited until he got everything prepared. When he got ready for me to belt the pulley, I picked up the belt off the counter shaft. It is an endless belt. When we failed to belt the pulley, it went over again. When we made the second effort to belt it, I brought the belt nearly to the center of the pulley, and it had not got around on the pulley. I reached over with one hand to catch it, and in that instant the belt was jerked out of my hand and went around the main line shaft. The shaft revolves 280 revolutions a minute. The belt was in operation, slipping around the pulley. It did not wind up. I saw Mr. Thompson there, and the belt was coming over at this time. I thought the belt was jerking Mr. Thompson to the main shaft. He had been raised three times off the floor by the belt. He just stopped there in an instant. He went across the line shaft, and was carried over the pulley and thrown loose in going over the pulley.

"Mr. Thompson was standing six inches from the shaft which revolved the pulley. There was no danger particularly connected with these pulleys. It required two men to belt the two pulleys. They always stand in a position to keep themselves out of danger. To do this one would have to stand at arm's length and hold the belt out. We regarded it as dangerous to get right up against the pulley. When the belt was jerked out of my hand, it was jerked off on the opposite side of the pulley, which I was trying to belt. The reason it jerked out of my hand, it got wound up on the line shaft where Mr. Thompson was, and had wound up and caught him. The belt was not broken when it was jerked out of my hand. It broke afterwards when it was wound up on the line shaft. The belt was in good condition when I tried to put it on the pulley. It was a two-ply five-inch belt. It possessed all the strength of any belt with the exception of a slight wear on it. It was comparatively new. It had been used for some time; was a comparatively new belt when it was put on. We never operated the pulleys with any other kind of belt. The belt was of sufficient strength to perform the services it did three times. It took two or three horse power to operate the gear, and the belt was twelve-horse power. Mr. Thompson got caught, and the belt began to wind. It had to wind at least three or four revolutions before it would get tight enough to break that belt, and Mr. Thompson was caught in there about the first or second revolution of the pulley. I could not say whether his sleeve caught him, and that caused the belt to break, but the belt began to wind just a little bit before Mr. Thompson caught in it."

Witness then describes how Thompson appeared as he was caught on the line shaft; says he was thrown up and thrown loose, and thrown on the opposite side of the line shaft from witness, and his leg was torn loose from his body, and thrown next to witness. All the belt was wound up on the line shaft except four or five feet. In unwounding the belt they found Thompson's shirt in there. They found his shirt sleeve in about the second round as it was unwound from the shaft.

Another witness testified that he had been in the sawmill business for sixteen years, and that it had been the general custom in belting a six-inch pulley to belt it with a belt one inch narrower. A five-inch belt would pull twice the load.

And still another witness, who had had ten years' experience in the sawmill business, testified that the belt in use at the time Thompson was killed was amply sufficient.

During cross examination, witness Ketchans, for the appellee, stated that he saw Thompson's wife on the day Thompson was killed, and had a few words conversation with her. The witness was asked if he stated to her at that time that "he warned everybody of the danger of that place except Thompson," and answered that he did not. The appellants offered to contradict this statement by showing by Mrs Thompson and other...