Case ID: wis_157/html/0360-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Maeshall, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Tomscyk, by guardian ad litem, Appellant, vs. Badger Box and Lumber Company, Respondent.
    
      May 2 —
    May 21, 1914.
    
    
      Master and servant: Injury: Directed verdict: Appeal: Review,
    
    In an action for injuries sustained, before tbe common-law rules were changed by statute, by an infant employee in a box factory, whose hand came in contact with a circular saw, a judgment for defendant upon a directed verdict is affirmed, it not appearing that the trial court was clearly wrong in holding that the evidence did not raise a jury question as to defendant’s liability.
    Appeal from a judgment of tbe circuit court for Wood county: Chas. M. Webb, Circuit Judge.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    Action for a personal injury. Plaintiff, a boy of seventeen years of age, while in tbe employ of defendant, received a personal injury by bis band colliding with a circular saw at wbicb be was working. Several grounds of actionable negligence were alleged but there was no evidence to sustain any except, possibly, as to fault in not furnishing plaintiff a suitable tool for use in performing bis duties and as to not warning of tbe danger of doing tbe work with such a tool.' Tbe evidence was to this effect: Plaintiff knew of tbe danger of allowing bis band to come in contact with tbe saw. Tbe saw was of moderate size, fixed to an arbor located beneath a saw table wbicb was about three feet high, two feet six inches wide, and four and a half feet long. Tbe top of tbe saw was about four inches above tbe table. In service it turned towards where plaintiff was required to stand. It was located about midway of tbe table. There were guides for spacing and keeping in place tbe boards while being passed forward in cutting operations. There was a guard, well down in tbe front of tbe saw, to protect tbe operator from flying sawdust. Plaintiff was required to pass short pieces of boards through tbe saw so as to split them into required widths. A complete operation consisted in placing a board to be split on the table in proper position for making the desired cut; then pushing it by hand forward until the cut was partly made, then with a stick held in the right hand and placed against the upper edge of the end of the board pass it on far enough to complete the operation. The stick was about eight inches long, two inches wide, and one-half inch thick, the hand end being curved down about like a revolver handle and the other end slanted from the top toward the hand end and at an angle of about twenty degrees. The stick was designed in order that — with the 'Stick placed against the upper edge of the board and the operator’s arm held at an angle of about forty-five degrees — the board would be held firmly down to the table. Plaintiff had worked some with a split saw having rollers to do the work performed in this case by the push stick. He had worked, as when injured, about two weeks. He was shown how to operate the push stick. The one he used at first was taken away and he made another substantially like it and continued working with that up to the time of the injury. He was not warned of the danger of the stick slipping from the end of the board and thus permitting his hand to enter the danger zone of the saw. There was evidence tending to prove that such an occurrence took place resulting in his hand being severely injured.
    There was evidence to the effect that the operation of putting boards through a split saw, as in this instance, was common; that in some cases rolls are used to hold the boards in place and move them forward so as to complete the operation and in some cases a hand tool is used of the kind plaintiff had, or with a notch in the end placed against the board so as to lock over the upper edge of the end, but with no guard to prevent its raising up and slipping towards the saw, as it is claimed happened in this case.
    The accident happened in 1909 before the enactment of tbe statutes changing common-law rules as regards the responsibilities of the employer in such cases and the duty of the employee to protect himself from the peril of obvious dangers.
    At the close of the evidence a verdict was directed for defendant and judgment was rendered accordingly.
    
      W. E. Wheelcm,, for the appellant.
    Eor the respondent there was a brief by Goggins & Braz-eau, and oral argument by T. W. Brazeau.
    
   Maeshall, J.

The judgment must be affirmed upon the ground that it does not satisfactorily appear that the trial court was clearly wrong in holding that the evidence did not raise a jury question as regards defendant’s liability.

By the Court. — So ordered.