Case Name: MAKIN v. PETTIBONE CATARACT PAPER CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1906-03-07
Citations: 97 N.Y.S. 894
Docket Number: 
Parties: MAKIN v. PETTIBONE CATARACT PAPER CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 97
Pages: 894–901

Head Matter:
MAKIN v. PETTIBONE CATARACT PAPER CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
March 7, 1906.)
1. Master and Servant—Injuries to Servant—Dangerous Machinery—Assumption oe Risk—Questions for Jury.
In an action for injuries to a servant whose hand "was drawn between the rollers of a machine used in manufacturing paper, evidence held to justify submission to the jury of the question whether plaintiff assumed the risk.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 34, Cent. Dig. Master and Servant, §§ 1068-1088.]
2. Same—Negligence of Master—Failure to Give Warning—Questions for Jury.
In an action for injuries, to a servant whose hand was drawn between the rollers of a machine used in manufacturing paper, evidence held to justify submission to the jury of the question whether defendant was negligent in not warning plaintiff of the dangers incident to the operation of the machine.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 34, Cent. Dig. Master and Servant, §§ 1044-1050.]
Williams and Nash, JJ., dissenting.
Appeal from Trial Term, Niagara County.
Action by George A. Makin, by guardian, against the Pettibone Cataract Paper Company. From a judgment for plaintiff and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
This action was brought to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff through the negligence of the defendant, while in the defendant’s employ, working in a paper mill. The accident occurred on the 4th day of March, 1904. The plaintiff, a boy of about 16 years, was on that day put at work as back tender on a machine consisting in the main of two sets of rollers, used in the manufacturing of paper. His hand was caught between the rollers and crushed. Other facts appear in the opinion.
Argued before McLENNAN, P. J., and SPRING, WILLIAMS, NASH, and KRUSE, JJ.
Maulsby Kimball; for appellant.
Robert H. Gittins,.for respondent.

Opinion:
KRUSE, J.
I think the judgment appealed from should be affirmed. While it is true that this boy, the plaintiff, had worked around the mill for some time before the accident, hfe had never before done the work which he was attempting to do when he was hurt. It was dangerous, and required close attention, quickness, and skill. He received no instructions or warning of its dangers, some of which were hidden and unknown to him, and the very first attempt he made to dispose of the waste paper his hand was suddenly drawn with the paper toward and between the fast revolving rollers and crushed. The work he was doing was called "back tending." There were two sets of rollers. The two sets were about feet apart, and the plaintiff was required to work in this space. Up to about a month prior to the accident there had been about 5feet of space between the two sets of rollers, but. additional dry rollers had been added and the space narrowed; thus in creasing the danger. Until this space was narrowed the waste or spoiled paper had not been drawn toward and' caught of itself between the two lower calenders as will be presently described. The paper in process of manufacture passed over and between one set of rollers known as the "driers," and then across to the other set known as the "calenders," from which it wound on a -reel. At times the paper would break in passing from the driers to the calenders, and then wind around the last drying roller. The back tender was then required to go between the two sets of rollers and quickly cut the paper from the dry roller, where it was accumulating, whereupon the paper, instead of passing up over the calenders, would fall upon the floor between the two'sets of rollers. This waste or spoiled paper was then put between the two lower calender rollers and carried away, dropping on the other side of the calenders. After the slack had been thus taken up the paper was snapped off, and the end nearest the drier taken over to the calenders and placed between the two upper calender rollers, and the process of making and finishing the paper was resumed. When the paper broke, it required prompt, quick, and accurate work, for the machinery was kept in motion; the paper accumulating at about 250 feet a minute and falling upon the floor. It was necessary to get rid of this paper and slack expeditiously to prevent as little of the paper being spoiled as was possible, and it was this work which the plaintiff was doing, or attempting to do, when he was injured. When the machinery was in motion and the rollers revolving, there was a tendency to draw the waste paper toward the revolving rollers. What caused this dangerous tendency does not appear very clearly, and perhaps it is not- very important. That it existed is scarcely disputed. The plaintiff was not informed of this danger, and did not know of it until his hand was drawn in between the rollers. I think it cannot be said as a matter of law that this danger was obvious and the risk assumed by the plaintiff. While he must have known that, if his hand was caught between the rollers, it would be injured, yet the jury were warranted in finding that this dangerous tendency to draw the material toward the roller was unknown to the plaintiff, and that reasonable care for the safety of this boy required the defendant to warn him of its danger. In this respect the case differs from those cited and relied upon by my Brother NASH, and, as I think, comes within the class of cases like Wyman v. Orr, 47 App. Div. 136, 62 N. Y. Supp. 195, and Welle v. Celluloid Co., 175 N. Y. 401, 67 N. E. 609.
As I view it, the case was one for the jury.. The questions were submitted to them with clearness and accuracy by the learned trial judge, and, they having found upon these questions adversely to the defendant, their verdict ought -not to be disturbed. The other points urged upon our attention by the defendant's-counsel have not been overlooked, but none of them, I think, are such as to warrant granting a new- trial. The judgment and order appealed from should be affirmed.
Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur, except NASH, J., who dissents in an opinion, and WILLIAMS, J., who dissents on the ground that, the -finding of the -jury that :the risk was not assumed 'is1 contrary to the-evidence.-