Case Name: DANIEL WEBBER, Appellant, v. WINFIELD PIPER and Another, Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1885-12
Citations: 45 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 353
Docket Number: 
Parties: DANIEL WEBBER, Appellant, v. WINFIELD PIPER and Another, Respondents.
Judges: Peatt, J., concurred.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 45
Pages: 353–355

Head Matter:
DANIEL WEBBER, Appellant, v. WINFIELD PIPER and Another, Respondents.
Negligence — a servant cannot recover for an injury caused by a risk incident to the business in which he is employed.
This action was brought to recover damages sustained by the plaintiff because of an injury to his hand caused by a circular saw at which he was working while in the employment of the defendants. The saw was out of set, and he had so informed the defendants’ foreman, who told him that he could not then attend to it but that it would be attended to at noon, and instructed him to go on with his work. The injury was thereafter occasioned by reason of the saw being out of set.
Held, that it was proper to nonsuit the plaintiff. (Dykman, J., dissenting.)
Appeal from a judgment, entered upon the dismissal of the complaint at the circuit.
The plaintiff sued for damages alleged to have been caused by defendants’ negligence. Plaintiff was a wood sawyer in the defendants’ employ, and was injured while tending a steam saw. The saw was, in the ordinary course of its use, “ set ” or sharpened every day or two by defendants’ foreman. This was part of the ordinary management of the shop. At the time of the accident the saw had not, plaintiff claimed, been “ set ” for over a week; and because of the failure to set it, plaintiff claimed that he was injured. The saw itself and all the machinery, were admitted to be good. Nor was any of it out of repair. It was proved that one Myers was in charge of the machinery and attended to repairing it, and was in the custom of sharpening those saws. The plaintiff testified that when on the morning of the accident he asked Myers for another saw and complained of its being out of set, the latter replied that “ he was too busy to sharpen a saw,” and that Myers “ asked me to hurry up,” and said, “ I will see what I can do for you at twelve o’clock.”
James 0. Glrnreh, forjthe appellant.
Edward M. Shepard, for the respondents.

Opinion:
Barnard, P. J.:
There was no defect in the saw beyond the fact that it was out of set. This is of constant occurrence when the saws are being used. The plaintiff asked that the saw be set and he was told in substance that it would be done at noon or be seen to at noon. The plaintiff with full knowledge that the saw was out of set, used it, and he' testifies that by reason of the saw being out of set he was injured. The risk was one incident to the business.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Peatt, J., concurred.