Case Name: KIRWAN v. AMERICAN LITHOGRAPHIC CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-02-07
Citations: 108 N.Y.S. 805
Docket Number: 
Parties: KIRWAN v. AMERICAN LITHOGRAPHIC CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 108
Pages: 805–807

Head Matter:
KIRWAN v. AMERICAN LITHOGRAPHIC CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
February 7, 1908.)
Master and Servant—Injuries to Employs—Dangerous Machinery.
A revolving shaft hung 4 inches under a table 10 or 12 inches back of the front edge, the table having a 4-inch board along its upper front edge, and another board at the bottom coming up from the floor a sufficient distance to leave an opening between the boards of 10% to 16 inches, is “properly guarded,” within Labor Law, Laws 1897, p. 480, c. 415, § 81, as amended by Laws 1906, p. 927, c. 366, § 1, so as to relieve the master from liability for injuries to an employs who was injured by crawling under the table through the opening in front to gather up some accidentally scattered work, though the employs was not warned of the danger of coming in contact with the shaft.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 34, Master and Servant, § 229.]
Patterson, P. J., and Laughlin, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Trial Term, New York County.
Action by Amelia Kirwan, an infant, by John A. Kirwan, her guardian ad litem, against the American Lithographic Company. From a judgment for plaintiff on the verdict of a jury, and from an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals. Reversed.
Argued before PATTERSON, P. J., and McLAUGHLIN, INGRAHAM, LAUGHLIN, and HOUGHTON, JJ.
Frank V. Johnson, for appellant.
Eugene L- Richards, Jr., for respondent.

Opinion:
HOUGHTON, J.
The plaintiff was in the employ of the defendant, and at the time of the accident her duties were to bring printed pamphlets to the stitching table and put them in> regular piles after they were stitched. The table at which she was at work was a little over 2 feet high and 2% feet wide, and was one of a series of tables upon which were wire stitching machines. A power shaft, by means of which the machines were operated, 1% inches in diameter, hung about 4 inches below the under side of the table, and 10 or 12 inches back from its outside edge. There was a 4-inch board along the upper edge of the table which came down to a point level with the top or the middle of the shaft. There was another board at the bottom of the table, coming up from the floor a sufficient distance to leave the opening between the bottom and top boards between 10% and 16 inches as variously described by the witnesses. While the plaintiff was at work some of the pamphlets which she was counting and piling fell to the floor and under the table. Plaintiff got down, as she describes it, upon her hands and knees, and crawled through this opening between the boards to pick up the pamphlets. In some way her hair came in contact with the revolving shaft above, and before the machinery could be stopped a large portion of her scalp was torn off. She was between 14 and 15 years of age, and, as conceded upon the trial, was rightfully employed by the defendant. The theory of the plaintiff is that the defendant was negligent in failing to properly guard the revolving shaft under the table, and also in failing to warn her of the presence of the shaft and the danger of coming in contact with it.
We think the judgment cannot be sustained on either ground. Section 81 of the labor law (chapter 415, p. 480, Laws 1897, as amended by section 1, c. 366, p. 927, Laws 1906) provides, amongst other • things, that all "shafting" shall be "properly guarded." The intent of the law was to provide that those parts of the machinery which were dangerous to those whose duty required them to work in its immediate vicinity should be properly guarded. Neither by the labor law nor any other are masters called upon to guard against every possible danger. They are required only to guard against such dangers as would occur to a reasonably prudent man as liable to happen. Glens Falls P. C. Co. v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 162 N. Y. 399, 403, 56 N. E. 897. There could be no possible danger from the shaft to persons working at the table. It was completely covered by the top of the table and the side piece. The board at the bottom was a further protection to one at work standing or sitting. So far as the ordinary work of the establishment was concerned, contact with the shafting was completely prevented. Tt would be impossible to so cover the machinery of a factory that no one could crawl into it and be injured. Nor was the defendant required to warn the plaintiff of the danger of coming in contact with the .shaft if she should crawl under the table. So far as appears, there was no reason why the defendant or any of its servants in charge of Its various departments should apprehend that the plaintiff would get under the table for any purpose. There was therefore no occasion for warning her against the dangers of doing such an unexpected thing.
The verdict of the jury, which necessarily involved the finding either that the defendant had failed to properly guard the shafting or to warn plaintiff of its dangerous character, is against the, evidence and the weight of evidence, and must be set aside.
The judgment and order reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.
INGRAHAM and McLAUGHLIN, JJ., concur.