Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1909-09-23
kennebec County Rescript.

In case of Herbert E. Wyman versus
Albert P. Berry. Rescript, Savage, ].
The plaintiff, who was the servant OF
ployer to the defendants servant
Wood, for days work on the defen-
dants farm, under circumstances
which warranted the jury in finding
that Wood had authority to procure
the service. The plaintiff was then
sixteen years of age.
Wood and the plaintiff undertook to
cut UP some straw for bedding. For
this purpose they used feed cutter
the power for which was supplied by a
gasolene engine. Wood fed the straw
into the machine, wnere it was cut by
knives affixed to shaft revolving at a
speed of about 600 revolutions min
ute. The plaintiff was directed to re-
move the chopped straw after it left
the machine, and carry 1t away i'll q
basket, or baskets. The chopped straw
as it came from the spout, so called,
of the feed cutter, either fell on the
fiGor, or, if the plaintiff was there with
his basket, into the basket. Around
the spout was a projection-a rim of
fiangc, at the top, in to the revolving
knives, was 4 distance of from three
and a half tC four inches The spout
was eleven inches wide, and about six
teen inches from top to bottom, and
the top of it was about thirty inches
from the floor. The knives were COW
cred by hood, and were not visible
to the plaintiff, in any position he
WOULD naturally assume in removing
the bedding. The plaintiff had never
worked about feed cutter before, and
was not acquainted with its mcchan-
ism. He did not know the exact po-
sitior of the knives. But he must have
known that knives. or some cutting
apparatus, was within the machine.
The plaintiff was told in the beginning
to take the straw away from the ma
chine, ''the straw that piled up" Soon
the machine clogged. The plaintiff was
then told ito keep it clear" No other
specific direction was given at any
time. The clogging was in the iron
rolls which conducted the straw to the
knives, and not in the knives them
selves But it is claimed for the
plaintiff that he understood that the
straw was clogged in the knives. Some
time afterwards, while he was away
emptying his baskets, straw accumula-
ted on the floor. When he returned he
put this into one basket and then took
the other basket, and placing it before
him, stood in front of the spout. and
caught the straw as it came down, to
use his own expression "comhed it
right down into the basket with both
hands dog paddle style" While he
was doing this. the machine clogged
again. He noticed that the machine
was shaking, and. as he says, he event
to pull the straw away and got his
fingers into the knives
The plaintiff complains of want of
proper Instructions and the defendant.
among other things says the plaintiff
was guilty of contrhutory negligence,
Upon the foregoing facts, it is held:
1. That though the plaintiff was
loaned to the defendant by his own
employer, the defendant owed to him
| the duties which master owes to a
| servant.
2. That in giving, or failing to give
| warning of hidden dangers. Wood was
not a fellow servant of the plaintiff
| but was a vice principal, and as such
| represented the master
3. That the defendant was not
bound to give the plaintiff warning OF
all possible, concealed, or unknown
| dangers incident to the use of the ma
chine. but only Of such as might expose
him 10 injury n the course of his en-
ploymcnt that is to say. while doing
his work in the way he was told to dc
it, if told at all. or, if not told, in any
way in which he might reasonably be
expected to do it, taking into account
his age. intelligence and experience.
4. That the plaintiff was guilty OF
contrlDutory negligence.
| Motion for new trial sustained.