Wright v. Stanley

• Decision Date: 02 December 1902
• Docket Number: 1,063.
• Citation: 119 F. 330
• Parties: WRIGHT v. STANLEY.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

119 F. 330

WRIGHT v. STANLEY.

No. 1,063.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

December 2, 1902

Lorenzo T. Durand, for plaintiff in error.

F. T Cahill, for defendant in error.

Before LURTON, DAY, and SEVERENS, Circuit Judges.

SEVERENS Circuit Judge.

This was an action brought by Stanley, the plaintiff in the court below, to recover damages suffered by him from an injury which he received while at work on a planing machine in a mill of the defendant below, who is the plaintiff in error here, an injury which resulted in the loss of a foot. The plaintiff was a boy 17 years old, who had been employed by the defendant some months before the accident, to take care of a horse used about the premises. After being employed in that work for a time, he was directed by his employer to report to the foreman of the mill after his morning's work was done, and occupy his time in service there. Under this direction he had been for a short time occupied in various duties about the mill, though not upon the planing machine until the day of the accident; but he had been about the machine, and had seen this, and other machinery of a different kind, used in the mill, in operation. On coming to the mill that day, he was directed by the foreman to run the machine,-- that is to say, to deliver the boards into the machine to be planed,-- but not further defining his duties. Near the fore end of the machine were a pair of pressure rollers, one above and one below, between which the board was gripped and carried along to the planing cylinders, one of which was not far behind the rollers and planed the upper surface of the board, and the other about 12 inches from the rear end of the platform of the machine, and located in the bed thereof. This latter cylinder planed the lower surface. There were also pressure bars bearing on the upper surface of the board to hold it down to the work of the cylinder below and a guide against which the board moved through the machine. The under-running cylinder projected a few inches below the platform, and was run at the speed of 3,500 revolutions per minute. In operating the machine it was necessary that one board should immediately follow another through the machine, otherwise the board in the machine would stop after passing the pressure rollers; so that when the last board of a given piece of work was put through the machine, it was necessary to follow it with a 'chaser,' or strip of board used only for that purpose. The 'chaser' itself would, therefore, have to be taken out before the machine could be readjusted for new work. So far there seems to have been no dispute.

With reference to the other facts there was evidence tending to show that the directions of the manufacturers of the machine provided a method of extricating the 'chaser' by certain manipulation of its parts, but that while the plaintiff had been in the mill it was usual for the men operating the machine to pull it out from the rear end by main strength, while the machine was in motion, by laying hold of the 'chaser,' and putting a foot against the rear end of the platform for advantage in the pulling; and that the plaintiff had seen upon several occasions the fore-end man go back and pull it out in this way, or assist the off-bearing man at that end in getting it out by such means. The under-running cylinder, though set with knives revolved so rapidly when the machine was in operation that it could not be distinguished from a roller, though some portions of it were in sight to one standing at the rear of the machine. The defendant gave the plaintiff no warning of any danger resulting from its presence, or special directions for operating the machine. We have said there was evidence tending to prove these things. It is not to be disputed that other evidence was put into the case tending to refute some or all of the matters thus stated, and which, if we were weighing the facts, might persuade us to a different conclusion as to some of them. But this was the province of the jury, and not of the court, if, as we think was the case here, evidence was given, which, if credited, tended fairly to show such facts, notwithstanding they might have been disputed by evidence more persuasive with the court. The plaintiff, while employed on the machine as above stated, had occasion to run a 'chaser' through it. It stopped in the machine, and it was necessary, as the plaintiff supposed, to get it out. Accordingly, he went around to the rear end of the machine, and, seizing the 'chaser' with his hands, pressed one foot against the rear end of the platform, and tried to pull it out. The rear cylinder was obscured by a pile of chips and shavings, and he says he did not see it. His foot slipped, and went back under the platform into...