Young v. Melrose Granite Co.

• Decision Date: 14 July 1922
• Docket Number: 22,812
• Citation: 189 N.W. 426,152 Minn. 512
• Parties: JULIUS J. YOUNG v. MELROSE GRANITE COMPANY
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

189 N.W. 426

152 Minn. 512

JULIUS J. YOUNG v. MELROSE GRANITE COMPANY

No. 22,812

Supreme Court of Minnesota

July 14, 1922

Upon the relation of the Melrose Granite Company the supreme court granted its writ of certiorari directed to the district court for Stearns county and the Honorable John A. Roeser, judge thereof, to review the proceedings in that court under the Workmen's Compensation Act brought by Julius J. Young, as employe, against relator, as employer. Reversed.

SYLLABUS

Injury from too long application at heavy work not within Compensation Act.

The Workmen's Compensation Act does not cover injuries resulting to the muscles and nerves through a too long continuance at a task that is too heavy for the employe and where there is no sudden or violent event producing at the time injury to the physical structure of the body.

R. W Brower, for relator and defendant.

Paul Ahles, for respondent and plaintiff.

OPINION

HOLT, J.

Certiorari to review a judgment awarded plaintiff under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Plaintiff is a stone cutter, having worked many years in the granite shops at St. Cloud. On August 9, 1920, he worked for defendant, and two hours the next morning. He then quit, and at one o'clock the same day started to work for another firm where he continued until December 18, 1920. In February, 1921, he demanded compensation for injuries. When it was refused the complaint herein was filed, wherein the claim is made that the machine at which he was set to work, on the dates mentioned, was so defective and out of repair that the operation thereof caused injuries to plaintiff's right arm and shoulder.

Plaintiff operated a stone surfacing machine of a type quite common in the granite shops of St. Cloud. It may be roughly described as an upright iron post or mast firmly imbedded in a cement foundation. Extending vertically from the post is a long arm upon which is a moveable contrivance carrying the hammer or tool operated by compressed air to dress the surface of the granite. This arm swings around the post and can be raised or lowered by means of a sprocket wheel held in place by a "dog" so as to keep the hammer about three inches above the surface of the stone to be dressed. The hammer is a bell-shaped instrument in which the cutting tool moves up and down very rapidly and with great force. The hammer is moved by the operator back and forth on the arm, and the arm is swung on the post or mast so as to permit any part of the surface of a stone laid on the banker to be reached and ground down. The operator stands upright and extends the arms out almost straight from the shoulder, moving the arm of the machine with one hand and controlling the hammer with the other.

The findings, mainly a rehearsal of the testimony of plaintiff and his medical expert, which attempt to show how the present condition of plaintiff resulted from the operation of the machine are these: "He (plaintiff) had not done any surfacing work for some time and the muscles that are called into play in this occupation were somewhat soft and unused to even the ordinary strain of such work. When working this machine he found that sometimes, on account of the defective condition of the mast, the machine would work toward him, requiring great effort to keep it away and on such places on the stone as needed treatment and at other times he found that the machine was crawling away from him and then it would require great effort to keep it where he wanted it to operate. As a result he found himself working under a great strain and jar and at the end of the day's work found himself exhausted to such an extent that he complained to the foreman, telling him that he was all in from working on that machine. * * * That night the plaintiff suffered a great deal of pain in his shoulder and back, so much so that he was unable to sleep the greater part of the night. On returning to work the next morning he found that the sprocket wheel had been repaired to some extent, so that it did not slip as it had before and thereby allow the frame [arm] to fall, but in all other respects the machine worked as heavy as before. At about ten o'clock that day * * * he stopped work and told the foreman, in substance, that he would no longer operate this 'horse killer', meaning the machine, and that 'if he stayed at it, it would kill him.' * * * He continued to experience pains in his shoulder and arm, but in spite of that condition he continued his work, as he had a family to support and was very reluctant to cease remunerative employment. After several weeks he noticed that the pain was no longer as acute as it had been at first, but the shoulder was becoming stiff. * * * He also noticed that his shoulder blade would leave its position in the back and would stand outward when his arm was raised in an upward position." It is also found that the muscles which control the shoulder have become atrophied through degeneration of the nerves supporting them and that "these nerves under the heavy strain required by the work of this machine, as aforesaid, were subjected to excessive traction and became, for all practical purposes, dead."

The foregoing findings embody the only salient facts upon which the finding of the ultimate and determinative fact must rest, to wit: "That plaintiff sustained injuries to his shoulder by accident while in the employ of the defendant, and while engaged in performing the usual and ordinary business of such employer."

On certiorari in compensation cases this court is concluded by the findings except as to the legal question whether...