Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1906-11-29
four RESCR|PTS,
Cumberland County Case
Of Negligence.
New Trial Is Denied in Peter
son vs.. Person.
Motion Also 0verruIed in CarlysIe
VS.. Parker.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY

faiIiuel morrison VS.. Charles w
Wight. I;cScript, Spear, j. (No Oui;,.
ion).
IhIS is an action on the case in
which the plaintiff seeks to rocov,r
damages for the loss Of an arm c3!1s.,t
hy the alleged negligence Of the Hill
lendant IN furnishing him With Al i,n-
proper apparatus for the operation &c
Il circular saw run by two horse now
CT. The negligence of which he COM
PLAINS is that the defendant fastened
tn" sockets which were intended to hold
the shaft or albDr, upon which the S;,v,
rrVnlvcd, to the saw bench by the I,sn
0. lag screws; that said lag screw;
We're insufficient in length and size ana
tHat. III consequence, they were pulled
out Of the bone Il by the lifting tom
drIty ui tn" :.}W. caused 10y the down
Ward pr"S&ur" " the teeth in cutting
the wool. ~ whatever. material mi.-ht
~ pressed against tho SAW, while in
uius Jon i li5 auirt:Htu; for saving
was mai" hE In" defendant for his
Own, iot ror l,ul,lic, use. and so far rs
he evidence shows had always been
operated by himself or his own family.
lie evidently did not desire the defend
ant t. operate this sax but instead Of
commanding him Mt to. suffered him
| to d 50. IL" defendant did not come
To IL" plaintiffs huU5" Ia operate the
:-1tN, hut at til" request of The plain
| ITS wife to % some work fn!. her.
| After cn-nl letting this work. and hav-
| VA" some Slar, time in the afternoon.
| til 4, PENDANT having prepared to saw
| = small quantity If wood. The plain
| tiff undertook the operation of the Sa "
"!i did operate it until the lag screws
Nc,r pulled out and the saw bounded
| against lis left arm producing injuries
!icce@sitating its amputatioN.
The defendant says that in view Of
| The circumstances Of the ease, first, he
vas no, negligent in furnishing improp-
| or apparatus upon which the plaintiff
was to work; second, that the plaintiff
( was volunteer in operating the saw
and not in the employ OF the defend
ant, and third, that he was guilty OF
contributoiy negligence. The jury
passed upon all these dcfcnccs and
found verdict for the plaintiff. Tho
! first and second dcfenccs we pass with
out comment, as the third presents the
issue upon which il our Judgment the
| result Of the case DIust turn.
Was the plaintiff himself guilty Of
anys negligence, in operating -the saw
il! a manner calculated to ContTibutn
To tho drawing of the lag screws from
their sockets, and thereby causing he
accident from which he received his
injuries We think ne was. We come
/ TO this conclusion not from the over
4 Nhrlming weight If evidence On tho
\ part OF tho defendant ana his Witness
IS, bat from their testimony currObOr-
II atCi by the testimony OF tie plaintiff,
II himself. The defendant contends that
Il The plaintiff crowded the stw; that the
s:lW could not Gus the wood so fast as
II the plaintiff pressed it on that tine
saw was abused by the sudden arni-
cation of forcc.-th" blow struck
against il Ivy the wood. that the fact
was apparent from the sound and also
Il hy the sldckcnin% speed of the saw:
i That he protested against this abuse
ami called the plaintiffs attention 70
i the danger Of it 1T least twice before
i hr accident. ana tried to induce him
/ 10 f,iNc up the SIM; that the plaintiff
I Cl;'iiu"I "a lave thorough knowledge of
/ tbs, operation Of SAWS and great f"HI-
| ness for it. infnruiI;; TIN" defendant Of
/ his long cNr"ri'n"" and that til" sing
/ ing Of TIA" @1W WEES music to his cars.
| Thc plaintiff docs rot meet this ;lc-
/ f'n2" hy denying That III crowded TIE
saW hut rather corruhnrltcs it. Upon
| thi:; point we quot from his cross ci-
JruIidtinu rs fnliuWs;: after tn"
s:lWInG had h"GUn lid Mr.. WriGh; 81:
anything e. y"u about ynui' ui, thnI IL
doing work" ii" olmc ty.n ~ tt.vcc
| times GurjHc the afternoon ANA offered
t. relieve ne. as ! Thought it Wa, ;p
| .n, II mo. tuid him lltcr' was no o.
ca>i"n. | had just as soon keep on
saving as d"iag anything else. t1"N
| many times did II" offer u relieve YOU"
| Two nr three times, | think. Two OF
! three times before tn" accident I:e-
| fore tho accident occurred, YES Sit.
| Whom n Offered to relieve yuu, iISt
what did IL say H TSh"d rc If hc
! l-nuiut take tn" saw for a while.
| Whit did YOU say? | t"ll lin | mad
| Just rs soon keep on, | wasn't tired: !
WorlItd at the saw good deal an liked
t. work at it. Did he critciso your
! method Of doing it, | don't rorlcnhcr
as he aid. Didn't ne say You were
| prcssin.; the wood too harI against tho
saw. I think he told re on" tim: net
| to fac too fast. Mt &c what Not to
| feed the wood 'uD fast N - the saw.
| Ibid lie use the word crowd crowding
tho SAW Wei, probably word I"
| that effect. How many times; dill he
protest against your Crowdin@ til"
saw" | don't just remember. He 0c-
| fcrcd Ia relieve me Two or three times.
| I don't remember low many times he
rGotested against Rowling the SAW.
/ Was it ut tho Same tim" he spoke Of
Your crowding the SAW That h offered
! t. relieve? | dont iuSt remcmrrr
| that: l couldn't say Cor certain. not %
be certain. When h" spoke nc your
! cYowding the saw. What did You tell
| him? | told him had worked a good
deal around s1w during my lifetime
ana understood : SAW pretty well. Il
words t. that effe,r. You toll? him