United States Cooperage & Handle Co. v. Williams
| Decision Date | 03 July 1916 |
| Docket Number | (No. 104.) |
| Parties | UNITED STATES COOPERAGE & HANDLE CO. v. WILLIAMS. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Dene H. Coleman, Judge.
Action by B. R. Williams against the United States Cooperage & Handle Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed, and cause dismissed.
On the 19th of August, 1914, appellee was in the employ of the appellant at its mill in Jacksonport, Jackson county, Ark. He was injured in the performance of his duty while working in the heading department. At 5 o'clock in the afternoon of that day the belt connecting the main line shaft with the countershaft broke. It had broken twice before that afternoon. It was an old worn belt. Dowell was the foreman under whom appellee was working, and when the belt broke the last time before the injury, Dowell stated, "We will quit for this afternoon as this belt is old and worn out and it is no good." Dowell and appellee then started away from the mill, got about 10 feet, and met the superintendent, Turner, who asked them why they were quitting so early, and he was told that it was on account of the condition of the belt; that it could not be worked with the rest of the afternoon, and Turner asked if they had made a sufficient number of bales of heading to complete a certain order, and on being informed that they had made all but three bales he directed Dowell to return and make those three bales. Dowell protested, but Turner directed him to "go and fix the belt and try to make the three bales." Dowell then turned to appellee and said, "Come on, let's go and fix the belt."
Dowell and appellee then proceeded to repair the belt. After they had laced a piece on the end of the old belt Dowell remarked, "Now we will try it." He turned and started up to the overhead scaffold and appellee followed him. Appellee sat down on the beam which supports the main line shaft, his body on the beam and his legs hanging down. He sat on the inner side, Dowell sat down on the same beam on the opposite side from appellee, and about 3 feet from him. They were facing in the same direction. The situation of the machinery was described by the appellee, using a model for the purpose. The revolving line shaft and pulley thereon were between them. Appellee sat near the line shaft and pulley. He was near enough to put his left arm over the pulley. He described on the model the position in which he sat, and the locations of the different parts of the machinery. The pulley was about 18 inches in diameter, made of two pieces of steel fitted together. There was a hole opposite where these pieces joined because they did not fit just exactly alike, and that made it easy for the belt to catch on. Appellee had been told by Dowell "to never let the belt get over across this pulley because there was danger in it catching on there of breaking and probably injuring something."
When Dowell got about half through lacing the belt together after it had been passed over the line shaft appellee noticed that the belt where it was lying on the line shaft began to slide up towards the pulley. They had placed it about 6 inches away from the pulley. When it began to slide towards the pulley appellee reached with his left hand over the pulley to pull the belt away, as he had done before. It was a part of appellee's duty to keep the belt away from the pulley while same was being repaired. Appellee had not been told how to do that and had not been furnished any implement with which to do it. He had to do it with his hands. Appellee was caught by the revolving shaft and pulley, entangled in the belt, hurled around the shaft, and was most severely injured.
The belt that was being used at the time appellee was injured had been used all the time he had been working at the mill. Appellee did not know that there was any tar on the belt at the time he was injured, but it had been used several times before. The foreman told appellee that they put tar on the belt to make it adhere or stick to the pulley. Appellee knew that there was a piece of machinery called a clutch by which the heading shaft, or shaft that run the machinery, could be disconnected from the rest of the mill and the rest of the machinery still go on. He knew at the time he was injured that this clutch would operate and stop the shaft upon which he was injured. He did not know what orders the superintendent had given in reference to throwing the clutch out of gear in order to stop the shaft. It was necessary after the clutch was thrown out to shut down the engine in order to place it back and start the machinery again, and that caused a loss of time. The superintendent said it was useless to be shutting down the engine every time they wanted to repair the belt overhead in the heading department, because it made it necessary to stop the whole mill.
Witnesses testified to the effect that that part of the machinery in the heading plant could be cut off from the motor power and the other part continue to go on. One of the witnesses testified that he did not understand the nature of the thing or the clutch, but it worked so as to throw part of the machinery out of gear and let the other go on.
Appellee sued the appellant for damages on account of his injuries, alleging that the appellant had failed to use ordinary care to provide appellee with a reasonably safe place in which to work and appliances with which to work. The complaint sets forth in detail the particulars constituting the alleged negligence, which were substantially as follows: In failing to provide plaintiff with a reasonably safe place in which to work and to fix or guard the shaft, and in failing to warn the plaintiff of the dangers incident thereto, and in failing to stop the machinery or disconnect the shaft from the motive power while plaintiff was engaged in assisting in repairing the belt and in requiring plaintiff to work with and use an old worn, tarred, and frazzled belt.
The complaint alleged that appellee was young and inexperienced, and that appellant well knew that fact, and well knew that the place where appellee was put to work was not safe, and that the instrumentalities were defective and were not guarded; that appellee, in doing his work, was under the immediate orders and directions of appellant's superintendent or manager and its foreman. It was alleged that the acts of negligence alleged caused appellee's injuries, which are specifically described.
The answer of the appellant denied the allegations of negligence set up in the complaint, and alleged that appellee "received his injuries by reason of his own negligence and carelessness"; and also that he "assumed the risk of any injuries he might receive when he ascended to the position occupied by him at the time of his injury."
Appellant, at the conclusion of the evidence, requested the court to instruct the jury to return a verdict in its favor. And also asked the following prayer for instruction:
"The court instructs the jury that if you find from the evidence that the plaintiff reached or leaned over a shaft which was at that time revolving at a high rate of speed, and the plaintiff knew, or by the exercise of ordinary care should have known, that such an act was dangerous, and that such act contributed to plaintiff's injury, then the jury will find that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, and you will find a verdict for the defendant."
These prayers for instructions the court refused.
The court, among others, granted appellee's prayer for instruction No. 5, as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial