Williams v. Ballard Lumber Co.

• Decision Date: 05 January 1906
• Citation: 41 Wash. 338,83 P. 323
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. BALLARD LUMBER CO.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

83 P. 323

41 Wash. 338

WILLIAMS v. BALLARD LUMBER CO.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 5, 1906

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; R. B. Albertson, Judge.

Action by Charles A. Williams against the Ballard Lumber Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

G. M Emory, for appellant.

James McNeny and S. H. Steele, for respondent.

ROOT J.

Respondent recovered a judgment of $1,075 in the superior court for damages occasioned by having his hand crushed between the cogwheels on the side of a planer in the mill of appellant for whom he was working. The facts as admitted and revealed by the evidence were about as follows: The machine upon which the plaintiff was injured is known as a 'Hoyt Planer, No 11,' and consists of an iron frame or bad nearly 14 feet long. The bed of the machine is 3 feet 4 inches wide, and 2 feet 4 inches above the ground. Upon the bed of the machine are three sets of rollers; each set consisting of two steel cylinders, one placed above the other, the function of which is to carry the lumber through the machine and hold it in place against the planing knives. The first set of rolls are about 5 feet away from the front of the machine where the feeder stands. The distance between the first set of rolls and the second set of rolls is 2 1/2 feet; the distance between the second and the last set of rolls is about 4 feet. It is between the last-named sets that the knives which plane the boards are situated. Each set of rolls is equipped with four cogs geared together in such a manner that they revolve thereby causing the rolls to turn. These cogs are 9 inches in diameter, and each pair of the left-hand cogs is so arranged as to afford an opening as much as 6 inches, so as to accommodate a piece of lumber of that thickness. These are known as expansion gears. The planer in question lay east and west in the mill; the operator standing in front of the machine at its east end. At the northwest corner of the planer were the cogs upon which the plaintiff was injured. Near the rear or west end of the machine, the plaintiff was kneeling just prior to his injury. The top of the two upper cogs is guarded with an iron strap conforming to the contour of the cogs and covering one-half of their circumference. The two right-hand cogs at the corner indicated mesh inwards, so that any object touching them at their point of contract and coming from the west would be drawn between them and crushed. At the east end of the machine the operator stands and feeds the lumber into the machine. It is customary to start the machine by taking hold of the lever just to the right of the large pulley on the right of the machine, and, by applying that lever and the idler, which is attached to it, to the main power belt which extends from the pulley near the roof to one attached to the countershaft on the floor, power is communicated to the belts on the right of the machine and which operate the knives alone. To the left of the machine is another driving pulley around which is a belt which goes around the driven pulley at the west end of the machine. The belt and pulleys on the left side of the planer operate the cogs and rolls which carry the lumber through the machine. The power is applied to the feed belt by taking the left-hand lever, to which is attached an idler, and pressing it upon the belt in question. The feed rolls are not supposed to be placed in operation unless the left-hand tightener is applied to the feed belt. The distance between the right-hand and the left-hand tightener is about 6 feet.

Some of the plaintiff's witnesses testified that the feed rolls and cogs on the planer started of themselves by the application of the right-hand or main tightener alone, and without the application of the feed tightener which was intended for that purpose. Plaintiff's witnesses also testified that there was a crack in the bed of the machine near the front rolls; that the driven pulley on the left-hand side wobbled; that the feed belt tightener was too short; that the belt operating the feed gear was too tight, and was in the habit of running up on the five-eighths inch flange on the driven feed gear pulley on the left-hand side. There was testimony tending to show that the planing mill in question was an old pattern, and out of repair; that the frame thereof had been broken and mended; that its shafts, pulleys, and gear were badly out of line; that the driven pulley on the feed gear belt wobbled, and the belt frequently ran on its flanges; that the feed gear lever had been broken and shortened; that in rainy weather the feed gear belt ran in the water, and was wet and unreliable and caused shavings and other sticky matter to adhere thereto and such belt was, by reason of being wet, subject to the elements and contracted and expanded. There was some evidence to the effect that said machine had been in an improper condition and the feed gear thereof had been customarily starting itself automatically for months before plaintiff was injured; that appellant knew of all of said defects and dangers, and the respondent had no knowledge thereof; and that the appellant failed and neglected to warn or caution the respondent against danger from automatic starting. Two experts testified for the plaintiff that a machine which starts automatically and in in the condition described by the plaintiff's witnesses is not in proper repair, and that it was practicable to cover cogs such as the ones which injured the plaintiff's hand. One witness testified that it was customary in the state of Washington to hood such cogs, but the same witness admitted that he did not know the custom as to hooding cogs in Ballard where this mill was situated. The plaintiff was 25 years old at the date of his injury. He had been a millwright for about 9 years, and had worked around sawmills since childhood. The greater part of his experience as a mill hand had consisted in running an edger. Respondent testified that he expressly told the foreman, at the time of his employment, that he was not a planing mill man; that he was only hired to 'fill in with' for a few days; that he had been at work on the machine five days before the injury; that his experience with planing machines of any kind was very limited; and that he was without any as to a machine like the one in question--all of which the appellant knew. He was familiar with the situation of the particular cogs, and knew that they would injure his hand if it came in contact with them. He had worked upon the planer in question a little over five days before his hand was injured. He had started up the machine a number of times himself, and knew the noise that it made with the feed gear in operation, and its sound when at rest. He had frequently seen the knives on the machine changed. The plaintiff claimed, however, that on the occasion of his injury he did not know that the machine was to be started up. Between 10 and 11 o'clock on the morning of March 11, 1903, the day of his injury, the plaintiff had cut all of the lumber he had on his trucks, and shut his machine down. He went to the back end of the machine on the south side. Avey, one of appellant's foremen, then ordered him to clean out the shavings from under the machine. This he proceeded to do at the northwest corner. Paul Kirkendall, a fellow laborer of respondent, worked at the trimmer to the west of the planer. Just before his conversation with Avey respondent asked Kirkendall if he was going to change the knives on the machine, and Kirkendall replied that he did not know. The attitude of plaintiff immediately before his injury was as follows: He was kneeling upon the floor on one knee, with his head partly under the northwest corner of the machine, with his right hand engaged in pushing shavings up the blower, and with his left hand resting on the bed of the machine, between eight inches and one foot from the point of contact of the two inmeshing cogs. It appears that at this time Paul Kirkendall, the trimmerman, had been ordered by Avey, the foreman, to leave his position as trimmer and change the knives on the planer. In order to do this, it was necessary to run from the machine the last board of the truck load Williams had been cutting. Kirkendall accordingly went around to the east end of the planer and applied the main tightener. There was a sharp conflict of evidence as to whether Kirkendall had started up the feed rolls by the application of the main tightener alone, or whether he had put them in motion by applying the feed lever. ...