Young v. Aloha Lumber Co.

• Decision Date: 22 June 1911
• Citation: 116 P. 4,63 Wash. 600
• Parties: YOUNG v. ALOHA LUMBER CO.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

116 P. 4

63 Wash. 600

YOUNG v. ALOHA LUMBER CO.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 22, 1911

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

Action by H. G. Young against the Aloha Lumber Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Dan Pearsall and A. Emerson Cross, for appellant.

Morgan & Brewer, for respondent.

ELLIS J.

This is an action brought under the factory act for damages for personal injury claimed to have been received by the appellant from an insufficiently guarded ripsaw in respondent's mill. It appears from the evidence that on or about February 1, 1910, appellant was engaged, through an employment agency at Aberdeen, to work in the respondent's millyard at Aloha, Wash., and on the 2d or 3d of February, 1910, when he presented himself for work, he was informed by the respondent's manager, a Mr. Dole that there was then no work for him in the yard, but that he desired appellant to work at a certain ripsaw in the mill. The manager inquired of appellant whether he was familiar with the operation of such a saw, and was informed by appellant that he was not. The manager then took appellant to the ripsaw, and demonstrated the operation of sawing by starting a board with his hand, and then shoving it through the saw with a stick. Appellant had never worked in a sawmill before, and knew nothing of the operation of saws but had run stationary and donkey engines for some time. He testified that he at once began work, operating as he had been directed by the manager, first starting the board with his hand, and then shoving it through with a stick about fifteen inches long; that he had worked about an hour and a half, when the mill foreman came up, and, putting his hand on the appellant's left shoulder, hallooed at him 'that this piecework has to be done fast.' Appellant's testimony as to how he was injured is as follows: 'Q. What did you do? A. I turned around and looked in--turned around and looked at his face. Q. What position were your hands? A. They were right in front of the saw, possibly a foot. Q. What did you have in your hands, if anything? A. I had a stick. Q. What were you doing with this stick at the time, Mr. Young? A. I was starting to shove the board through the saw. Q. Had this board gone all the way through the saw at the time--at the time that you turned around to see the foreman? A. No, sir. Q. Do you recall which shoulder he hit you on? A. I think it was my left shoulder. Q. Which way did you turn, to the left or to the right? A. To the left. Q. Which hand--which was forward on this stick, your left or right hand? A. My left hand. Q. Did you have anything on your hand? A. On the stick?' After being questioned concerning a glove which was on his hand at the time, his examination continued: 'Q. What did you do--how did you know that your hand was in the saw? A. Because I felt like there was an electric shock running through my arm. Q. What did you do when you felt this shock that you speak of? A. I looked at my hand. Q. And in what condition did you find it in? A. It was very bloody at that time. Q. As to its condition, as to whether or not it was all there or not. A. It was not all there. Q. What part was gone, if any? A. That finger. Q. Where was the portion of that finger or did you know where that portion of that finger was? A. It laid on the front of the table. Q. Were any other fingers or any other portion of your hand cut at the same time? A. Yes, sir. Q. Tell the court and jury what portion of your hand and fingers were cut. A. This middle finger was cut in two, and this part here was cut half through and the joint and thumb split up.' Appellant further testified that he did not attempt to brush spalts or splinters away from the saw with his hand, and that he did not get injured in that manner.

The saw was guarded by a board along the right side and another about three inches wide over the top of the saw, at right angles to the first board and about three inches above the saw. The saw projected, appellant says, more than 2 1/4 inches through the table on which the boards were placed for sawing. The front of the saw and the left side above the table were exposed to the operator. A picture, introduced in evidence by respondent on cross-examination of the appellant, shows a piece of leather, or covering of some kind, over a part of the front of the saw, but appellant said he did not remember seeing it there at the time of the accident.

One J. S. Coxey, called as an expert for appellant, testified that in years past he had worked in sawmills for about five years in all; that he had had about three years' experience with table saws like a ripsaw or resaw; that he had made guards for several ripsaws and had seen several made by other people; that he was acquainted with the operation of ripsaws and resaws; that he had been in recent years engaged in various lines of business and employment, and at times in inventing sundry devices, among them models for guards for wood-working machines. The trial court holding him sufficiently qualified as an expert, he testified that the guard above described would be reasonably safe to guard against spalts or anything thrown against the operator's body or face by the saw, but not as a protection for the hands. Being asked what in his opinion would be a reasonably safe guard for a ripsaw, having due regard to the uses for which it is intended and the efficiency of its operation, he testified, in effect, that a reasonably safe guard for such a saw would be an adjustable hood, suspended on a screw or bolt over the saw, in such a way that it could be raised or lowered according to the thickness of the boards to be sawed, thus protecting the operator from injury at every point except the space through which the boards would pass; that such a guard would not interfere with the operation of the saw in the least, and that, if such a guard had been used, it would have been impossible for the appellant to be injured. He further testified that he had had such a guard of his own some 12 years ago, and had seen one in use on a ripsaw or resaw the day before the trial, in the Aberdeen Manufacturing Company's plant at Aberdeen.

Such is the substance of appellant's evidence. At its close respondent moved for a nonsuit, challenging its sufficiency on various grounds. The court, in sustaining the motion, said: 'Now, gentlemen, I think I will have to sustain the motion. There is no evidence showing just how this man did get his hand hurt. The only way that I can gather from the evidence that he did get it hurt was that he says that he had his hand on the board that was going through the saw, the left hand, and that the foreman touched him on the shoulder to attract his attention and that when he was looking at the foreman, in speaking to the foreman, he felt his hand hurt. Now, it seems evident to me, gentlemen, that he simply held his hand on the board, as it passed through into the saw, too long. It slipped into the saw, his finger, before he was aware of it. Any guard that might have been on there that would permit a board to run through there would have allowed the same thing. Anything, any guard, would have allowed his hand to go in there the same way, and, for that reason, that it could not have been owing to the guard, because any guard that could have been placed there that would have allowed the saw to operate would have allowed his hand to go under the guard. It was simply one of those accidents that would have occurred from his inattention. If he had stopped and took his hand off while he allowed the foreman to speak to him, he would have not been hurt. As I see it, any guard that could have been placed there could not have prevented his hand from slipping into the saw when he had hold of the board, which was evidently the way he was hurt. The evidence shows that he was properly instructed as far as that is concerned, and shows that he was not experienced in the use of saws, but also shows that he was an experienced man and had been around machines and had run donkey engines for some time, so that his education in that way would have been sufficient for him to understand the ordinary risks of handling...