Case ID: ohio-cc-ns_15/html/0222-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

INJURY TO OPERATOR OF EMERY WHEEL.
    Circuit Court of Hamilton County.
    William Knapp et al v. Everett P. Holden.
    Decided, July 20, 1912.
    
      Assumed Risk — Employer Relieved from Liability for Alleged Negligence — Resulting in Injury to ■Employe at Work at am Emery Wheel — Section 6%45,
    
    An emery wheel is a “simple tool” within the meaning of Section 6245, and where the evidence discloses that the injured plaintiff had worked at an emery wheel for more than thirty years and at the particular wheel by which he was injured for two years, a motion lies to direct a verdict for the defendant.
    
      Matthews <& Matthews, for plaintiff in error.
    
      G. M. Gist, contra.
    Jones, J.; Smith, P. J., and Swing, J., concur.
   The court below erred in not sustaining the motion made at the close of all the evidence for a verdict in favor of defendants. •

The evidence shows the emery wheel which the defendant in error was operating to have been a “simple tool” and one with which he was familiar. Pie had worked upon this wheel for two years and had been an emery-wheel worker for over thirty years. Under such state of facts Section 6245, General Code, does not apply.

The third defense of the answer was fully sustained by the evidence and such evidence' bars recovery.

Judgment reversed and judgment given for plaintiffs in error.