Zajac v. Amoskeag Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 04 March 1924
• Parties: ZAJAC v. AMOSKEAG MFG. CO.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

124 A. 792

ZAJAC

v. AMOSKEAG MFG. CO.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Hillsborough.

March 4, 1924.

Transferred from Superior Court, Hillsborough County; Branch, Judge.

Case by Frank Zajac against the Amoskeag Manufacturing Company. Verdict for plaintiff. On defendant's exceptions to denial of its motion for a nonsuit and for a directed verdict. Exceptions sustained.

Case for personal injuries. Trial by jury. Verdict for plaintiff. Transferred on defendant's exception to the denial of its motions for a nonsuit and for a directed verdict.

The plaintiff was injured upon a Kitson opener and breaker, a machine designed to break up the cotton in the first step in preparation for spinning. It includes a hopper open at the top into which the cotton is placed from the bale. The bottom and back interior surfaces of the hopper each consist of latticed aprons 40 inches wide. Each apron forms an endless belt driven by cylinders 5 inches in diameter over which it passes at each end. One apron is lateral and forms the floor of the hopper. The other apron stands at an angle of about 15 degrees from perpendicular leaning away from the lateral apron and forms the back interior surface of the hopper. This upright apron is made up of wooden slats about 1 inch wide riveted to three or four leather belts. Pins projecting into the hopper on every other slat tear and carry upward over the top of this apron the cotton which is brought to it by the motion of the lateral apron. Except as the hopper is open at the top, all moving parts are inclosed in a metal case made solid to the hopper. The upright apron, which is 6 feet in height, is supported by three intermediate carrier rolls. Each carrier roll is supported at either end by a shaft or gudgeon 5/8 of an inch in diameter and 2 1/2 inches long. These gudgeons rest in hook-shaped slots or bearings which are a part of the metal case. These slots, cut parallel to the course of the apron, are 1 1/8 inches deep and 7/8 of an inch wide at the opening. The rolls are held in place by gravity. The metal case has oval openings through its sides at either end of the three carrier rolls. These openings are about 4 by 9 inches and are cut at the angle of the course of the apron. The hook-shaped bearings project into these openings at a point 3 inches from the top. Each of these openings is of sufficient size so that a man's arm may be inserted beneath the roll and the roll lifted from its bearing and removed. The carrier rolls are 3 inches in diameter and 40 inches long and are operated solely by the friction of the apron and supporting belts. When the machine is in operation, the apron moves upward at the uniform speed of 25 feet per minute. A carrier roll occasionally, but not often, stops. This is sometimes due to a gummed bearing and sometimes to a lack of friction of the apron belts when the cotton bears lightly against it. When stopped from the former cause, a roll causes wear upon the apron.

The plaintiff is a Polander and does not read, write, or speak English. He had worked for the defendant company for 20 years and had operated the Kitson openers for 5 or 6 years. When set to work on these machines, he was given no instructions. His duty was to put cotton in the hopper, to feed it, and keep it going, to sweep and to clean. He had seen the second hand start a roll with his hand by reaching through the opening under the bearing, and had been told by him to move a roll when it stopped. The plaintiff had been accustomed to start an idle roll at different times with his hand or with a stick if he had it handy. At the time of the accident he had no stick and used his right hand to start the middle or second roll, which was less than 4 feet above the floor upon which he was standing. His hand was caught between the belt of the apron and the carrier roll. The fingers and knuckles were scraped and the wrist or arm more severely injured. Other facts appear in the opinion.

Robert W. Upton, of Concord, and Joseph E. Lachance, of Manchester, for plaintiff.

Warren, Howe & Wilson and De Witt C. Howe, all of Manchester, for defendant.

SNOW, J. The plaintiff, the only witness to the accident, testified in substance that, observing the middle roll was stopped, he reached through the opening beneath the bearing to start it; that when he touched the bottom of the roll it moved fast and caught his hand; that he "yanked it and pulled it out"; that the nails on the inside of the belt scraped the back of his fingers and knuckles; and that the roll turned the arm and broke it. The only other evidence bearing on the manner in which the plaintiff's hand was caught is the testimony of the plaintiff's mechanical expert, who stated that the plaintiff must have touched the moving apron which drew the hand into the nip between the roll and the apron.

The plaintiffs claim is that the defendant was negligent (1) in furnishing a defective machine, and (2) in failing to give proper warning of the defect.

The defect relied upon was a depression about one-fourth inch deep in the lower side of the inclined slot or bearing which had been created by 18 years' wear of the revolving gudgeon. The evidence tended to show that the shoulder of the depression had a tendency to check to some extent the otherwise free upward movement of the roll if pressure should be applied from beneath. The plaintiff's contention is that, as his hand when caught between the roll and belt reached across beneath the roll, and as his shoulder was higher than the roll, the roll would necessarily have been lifted from its socket by the upward motion of the arm and the belt, and that therefore, but for the defect, the forearm would not have been broken. To state plaintiffs position in another way: It is not claimed that the defective bearing caused the hand to be caught: the claim is that, but for the defect, the hand having been caught, the plaintiff's injury would have been limited to the fingers and knuckles. In other words, the plaintiff's theory is, not that the accident would not have happened but for the defect, but that, except therefor, the progress of the accident would have been interrupted before the infliction of the injury to the...