Yess v. Chi. Brass Co.

• Decision Date: 14 March 1905
• Citation: 124 Wis. 406,102 N.W. 932
• Parties: YESS v. CHICAGO BRASS CO.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

124 Wis. 406

102 N.W. 932

YESS

v.CHICAGO BRASS CO.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

March 14, 1905.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Kenosha County; E. B. Belden, Judge.

Action by Herman Yess against the Chicago Brass Company. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

This is an action for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff while in the employ of the defendant in operating a brass rolling block machine in the defendant's brass rolling mill, May 22, 1902. Issue being joined and trial had, the court, at the close of the testimony on the part of the plaintiff, granted a nonsuit, and from the judgment entered thereon the plaintiff brings this appeal.

The evidence, as stated on the part of the plaintiff, tends to prove that the machine so operated by the plaintiff consists in the main part of a short shaft about four feet long, at the end of which is a cylindrical block, made of wood, about eighteen inches long and eight inches in diameter. The block is set behind the large rolls, and about three or four feet from them, and is used in winding into rolls the thinner bars of brass as they pass through the large brass rolls. The shaft and block is made to revolve or turn by means of two large pulleys on the opposite end of the shaft from the wooden block, which are connected by belts to pulleys on the main shaft above. These two pulleys are about ten inches apart, and revolve in opposite directions. They are not so connected with the shaft as to impart motion to it, except by a clutch, which slides back and forth upon the shaft between the pulleys, and engages with either of them. This clutch is so moved by means of a foot lever connected therewith and extending under the block at the opposite end of the machine, where it may be easily touched by the foot of the operator. Thus, when the clutch is moved so as to engage with the outer pulley, in which position it is kept by means of a spring unless moved therefrom by means of such lever, the block revolves so as to wind or coil up the bars of brass as they come from the rolls; but if the clutch is disengaged from the outside pulley by means of such lever, the block ceases to turn unless the clutch be moved by such lever over to and engaged with the other pulley, in which case the block will be caused to revolve in the opposite direction, loosening and unwinding the roll of brass. The friction of the clutch upon the pulley is upon a bearing of about three-quarters of an inch; that is to say, the surfaces of contact between the clutch and the pulley, or the surface of the recess in the clutch and the corresponding surface on the pulley, are each about three-quarters of an inch in area, and each surface is curved, and kept well oiled, so that a very slight pressure upon the lever will disengage the clutch from the pulley and stop or reverse the block as the same is used in the conduct of the defendant's business. In using this machine the employé takes hold of the bar of brass near the end, after it has come through the rolls, and, as it slowly rolled out, carries it under the block, and with the hands bends the end of the bar around the block, pressing it tightly to the block, and causing the end of the bar to become caught between the bar and the block at the point of contact on the under side of the block, and the bar to be rolled up. When the bar has been entirely rolled or coiled up on the block, he touches the lever with his foot, thus disengaging the clutch from the pulley, and stopping the block, and permitting him to remove the roll of brass from it. It takes considerable strength to bend and hold the bar tight about the block in order to get it caught. The block revolves and runs away from the operator very slowly, the bar of brass passing from the rolls to it about as fast as a man walks slowly. These pulleys on the block machine are flanged so that the belts cannot be removed therefrom. There is no belt shifter or any other means of disengaging power from this machine, except the lever shifting the clutch as described; and when the machine is engaged in winding or coiling a bar of brass it is impossible to disengage the clutch from the pulley on account of the great tension of the bar of brass as it is being wound up. There is then no other way of stopping the block than by cutting the belt transmitting power to it. The defendant employed the plaintiff and set him at work at this block machine five or six weeks before the accident. He was inexperienced with machinery, and particularly with this block machine, and knew nothing about its operations or its dangers. The plaintiff had not applied for such work, and the defendant directed one familiar with the operation of the machine to instruct him how to run it. The plaintiff was given no instruction as to such impossibility to stop the machine when in operation, but, on the contrary, was told that when he wanted to stop the machine all he had to do was to put his foot on the lever disengaging the clutch. The plaintiff believed from what he had been told that he could stop the machine instantly, at any time, by placing his foot upon the lever. He had no occasion to attempt to stop the machine while it was engaged in winding brass, and knew, moreover, that to stop the machine at such a time would cause serious trouble in his work. The defendant and its foreman knew that the machine could not be stopped when in use and under tension. The plaintiff worked at this machine the greater part of the time for five or six weeks immediately before the accident. On the morning of that day, just as he was bending a bar about the block and holding it so that it would become caught and rolled up, his foot slipped on a small quantity of oil on the floor near the machine, causing his hand to slip between the bar and the block. He immediately pressed upon the lever with his foot, and then he jumped on it with both feet, and learned for the first time that it was powerless to stop the machine. Up to the time he had stepped upon the lever with both feet only his hand was caught, and that was not injured. But the machine could not be stopped until several minutes after, and then was stopped by cutting the belt with a pocket knife, after the plaintiff's arm had been slowly wound up, broken in several places, and greatly mangled, and his body had been turned about the block three times, and seriously injured by striking against the machine. The plaintiff testified that he was not aware of this oil upon the floor on that day until after he was injured. It was lubricating oil which had been used, and undoubtedly came from the oil cup under the shaft hanger, which was above the place where the plaintiff worked, and which was permitted to overflow.Norman L. Baker, for appellant.

Peter Fisher (Thomas Kearney, of counsel), for respondent.

CASSODAY, C. J. (after stating the facts).

It is alleged in the complaint that the defendant was negligent in failing to furnish the plaintiff with a reasonably safe place in which to work while operating the machine, by allowing oil to accumulate upon the floor; also that the defendant was negligent in setting the plaintiff at work...