Ward v. National Lumber & Box Co.

• Decision Date: 29 July 1909
• Citation: 103 P. 1,54 Wash. 304
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: WARD v. NATIONAL LUMBER & BOX CO.

103 P. 1

54 Wash. 304

WARD v. NATIONAL LUMBER & BOX CO.

Supreme Court of Washington

July 29, 1909

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Chehalis County; Mason Irwin Judge.

Action by Frank R. Ward against the National Lumber & Box Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

W. H. Abel and A. M. Abel, for appellant.

Govnor Teats, Hugo Metzler, and Leo Teats, for respondent.

DUNBAR J.

This is an appeal by the National Lumber & Box Company from a judgment rendered against it in the sum of $2,000, in a suit brought by respondent Frank B. Ward for personal injuries received by him in its employ. The injury was the loss of his left hand, which was cut and torn off between the grease cut and friction wheel while he was lubricating a bearing. The friction wheel drives the setworks to the double cut-off saw. In order to oil the bearing, it was necessary to mount a ladder and walk along a plank. The friction wheel revolved upon a shafting. The boxing of the shaft was fastened to a timber, known as a 'bridge tree.' The oiler had to go in a stooping position, reach through between two horizontal timbers, and oil the bearing. To lubricate this bearing there was an oil extension pipe and patent cup; the pipe being between two and three feet long, fastened in the boxing, and extending therefrom to where the oiler stood. There was also a patent grease cup fastened in the boxing, consisting of a pipe about six inches long with cup attached, screwed into the boxing at a distance of about three-fourths of an inch from the spokes of the friction wheel. Ward had used the oil cup for the purpose of lubricating this bearing for about three weeks before the accident, when he found the grease cup placed there as he supposed, for him to use, and from that time until the accident he did use the grease cup to lubricate the bearing. He testified that he had been instructed to economize the oil, as it was very expensive, and to use the grease when it could be used, and that he was undertaking to follow out what he supposed was the will and desire of his employers in using the grease instead of the oil. In turning the grease cup, his hand was sucked in, as he says, by the wheel, and was cut off. The case was tried to a jury. At the close of the respondent's case, motion was made for nonsuit, which motion was overruled. The case went to trial. The defense introduced testimony in support of its contention that the respondent had been guilty of negligence, and assumption of risk, and that there was no negligence on the part of the appellant. The motion was repeated at the end of the whole case, and refused, and the case submitted to the jury with the verdict mentioned above, viz., the sum of $2,000, for which judgment was entered.

There are two principal contentions of the appellant in this case viz.: (1) That the factory act does not in terms require friction wheels to be guarded, and that therefore the respondent should be charged with the assumption of risk in operating a machine which was noticeably dangerous; and (2) that the respondent was guilty of contributory negligence in operating said machine in the way he did operate it. The factory act (Laws 1905, p. 164, c. 84, § 1) provides for reasonable safeguards for all vats, pans trimmers, cut-off, gang edger, and other saws, planers, cogs, gearings, belting, shafting, coupling, set screws, live rollers, conveyors, mangles in laundries, and machinery of other or similar description. The enacting clause is: 'An act providing for the protection and health of employés in factories, mills and workshops where machinery is used.' The act further provides for ventilation and sanitary conditions, guarding of trapdoors and hatchways, etc.;...