Estes v. Edgar Zinc Company
| Decision Date | 06 December 1913 |
| Docket Number | 18,488 |
| Parties | WILLIAM J. ESTES, Appellee, v. EDGAR ZINC COMPANY, Appellant |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided July, 1913
Appeal from Montgomery district court; THOMAS J. FLANNELLY, judge.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
PERSONAL INJURIES--Conveyor Belt in Elevator--Findings Do Not Sustain Verdict. In an action to recover for injuries alleged to have been received because a certain conveyor belt, being out of gear, started in gear and in motion without human agency, the jury, in answer to a special question whether such belt got into gear automatically, answered: "No evidence to show how it got back." Held, that a general verdict for the plaintiff should have been set aside.
O. P Ergenbright, of Independence, for the appellant.
Chester Stevens, of Independence, and Charles D. Welch, of Coffeyville, for the appellee.
The plaintiff recovered a judgment for injuries received while working at an elevator box in the defendant's plant. The building was four stories high, and the power running the conveyor belt came from a horizontal shaft on the fourth floor which was so arranged that when the belt of the conveyor worked upon a pulley which revolved with the shaft the power was thereby transmitted, and in order to throw the belt out of gear it was necessary for a workman on the first floor to pull a rope reaching down from the fourth floor, the effect of which was to change the belt over to a loose pulley not revolving with the shaft. To put the belt in gear another rope was provided, by which the belt could be drawn back so as to run over the fixed pulley. The petition alleged, among other things, that the apparatus for starting and stopping the conveyor belt was defective in that it would start in motion after having been thrown out of gear "without any one having pulled the rope provided for that purpose, by reason of some defect in the machinery for throwing and keeping said belt out of gear"; that it was the plaintiff's duty when the conveyor belt became choked to throw the belt out of gear and clean out the elevator box; that in attempting so to do he pulled the rope in the usual and proper way, and went to the elevator box and proceeded to remove with his hand the accumulated obstructions therein, and while so engaged, without any warning the belt started up, pulling the plaintiff's hand forward and crushing it. The answer was a general denial and plea of contributory negligence and assumption of risk. The instructions were brief and clear, and are not attacked by either party. The jury were told that if the plaintiff knew, or in the exercise of common and ordinary sense and judgment could have known, that the instant the obstruction was removed the belt would start in motion, then he could not recover; that the plaintiff's claim as to defects was that the conveyor belt "would start in motion without any one having pulled the rope provided for that purpose."
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and in answer to special questions found that he pulled the rope in the usual and ordinary way for throwing the machinery out of gear before beginning work in the elevator box; that the belt started in motion while he was engaged in cleaning out the box, without notice or warning.
" It was also found that the plaintiff stated to witnesses that he might have pulled the wrong rope. The other...
To continue reading
Request your trial