Case Name: McEWEN v. BORDEN'S CONDENSED MILK CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1912-12-06
Citations: 138 N.Y.S. 844
Docket Number: 
Parties: McEWEN v. BORDEN’S CONDENSED MILK CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 138
Pages: 844–848

Head Matter:
McEWEN v. BORDEN’S CONDENSED MILK CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
December 6, 1912.)
1. Master and Servant (§ 129*)—Injury to Servant—Proximate Cause.
Plaintiff, who was nearly of age, had been in defendant’s employ for about a month, and was operating a machine with unguarded gears and cogs revolving at the rate of 90 revolutions a minute. Two mechanics testified that it was practicable to guard the gears and cogs in a manner to avoid injury, without interfering with the efficiency of the machine, and one side of the machine was in fact guarded. While plaintiff was operating the machine, in going from one side of it to the other, he slipped, and his right hand fell upon the unguarded gears. Meld, that they were the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries.
[Ed. Note.—‘Eor other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§.
257-263; Dec. Dig. § 129.*]
2. Master and Servant (§ 288*)—Assumed Risk—Knowledge of Danger.
Even if plaintiff had full knowledge of the danger involved in operating the machine in its unguarded condition, whether he assumed risk therefrom was a jury question.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 1005, 1068-1088; Dec. Dig. § 288.*]
3. Appeal and Error (§ 927*)—Review.
On appeal from a judgment of dismissal at the close of plaintiff’s case, the courts should take the most favorable construction of the evidence which the jury might have properly placed upon it, as in case of nonsuit.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2912,. 2917, 3748, 4024; Dec. Dig. § 927.*].
Burr, J., dissenting.
*For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date. & Rep'r Indexes.
Exceptions from Trial Term, Orange County.
Action by Oscar W. McEwen against the Borden’s Condensed Milk-Company. On plaintiff’s motion for a new trial upon a case containing exceptions ordered to be heard at the Appellate Division in the first instance upon the dismissal of the complaint. Motion granted.
Argued' before HIRSCHBERG, BURR, THOMAS, WOODWARD, and RICH, JJ.
John C. R. Taylor, of Middletown, for plaintiff.
Thomas M. Rowlette, of New York City (Thomas C. Rogers, of Middletown, on the brief), for defendant.

Opinion:
HIRSCHBERG, J.
The action is to recover compensation for damages received from injuries charged to the defendant's negligence. It is brought under the Employer's Liability Act (chapter 600, Laws of 1902), and the negligence charged is violation of the requirements of section 81 of the Labor Law (chapter 36, Laws of 1909; Consol. Laws 1909, c. 31), requiring all cogs, gearing, set screws, and ma chinery of every description to be properly guarded. At the time of the accident the plaintiff, nearly of age, had been in the defendant's employment about a month at a factory in Orange county, and was then engaged in washing bottles on a machine constructed and installed for that purpose. In the operation of the machine the bottles to be washed are put on brushes on one side of the machine and are carried around and taken off on the other side. There are gears and cogs revolving at the rate of 90 revolutions a minute, and which, the evidence tends to show, were unguarded.
While the plaintiff was engaged in the performance of his duties, in going from one side of the machine to the other, he stepped on a bottle which he did not see, and which had not been placed on the floor by him, and slipping, because of that step, his right hand fell into the unguarded gears, and his thumb and a portion of the index finger were taken off. In addition to his own evidence and that of an eyewitness as to the accident, he produced two mechanics, who testified that it was practicable to guard the gears and cogs, in a manner. which would have avoided any injury, without interfering with the operation or efficiency of the machine. The question presented on the appeal is whether the undisputed facts required a submission of the case to the jury.
I think the uncovered gears were the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries, if not the proximate cause of the accident, and that under the authorities there should have been a submission to the jury. In Finkle v. Bolton Landing Lumber Co., 148 App. Div. 500, 132 N. Y. Supp. 1038," the' plaintiff was employed to operate a arcillar saw, and, tripping over nails in the floor, he thrust his hand against the uncovered saw.- It was held that the tripping and the lack of a proper guard were concurring causes of the accident, and that it was error for the court to take from the jury the question of the defendant's negligence in failing to guard the saw, on the theory that it was not the proximate cause of the accident. In Martin v. Walker & Williams Mfg. Co., 198 N. Y. 324, 91 N. E. 798, it was held that where an enaployé slipped on the floor by reason of oil which had dripped thereon, and the slipping caused him to fall forward and to thrust his hand into running machinery, the fact that it was practicable to cover the machinery in such a way as to prevent the injury sustained justified a recovery.
In the case at bar the machine was guarded on one side and not upon the other, and the evidence referred to tends to establish that it was entirely practicable to guard it on both sides. Had it been so guarded, the injury suffered by the plaintiff would not have been sustained. In Scott v. International Paper Co., 204 N. Y. 49, 97 N. E. 413, the Court of Appeals decided that, where it is practicable to guard a machine and danger from its remaining unguarded should be reasonably anticipated, the provisions of the Labor Law are mandatory, and that the burden of showing that it is impracticable to guard it, or that its location removes it from danger to employés, is upon the person or corporation maintaining the machine. See, also, Hart man v. Berlin & Jones Envelope Co., 71 Misc. Rep. 30, 127 N. Y. Supp. 187, affirmed 146 App. Div. 926, 131 N. Y. Supp. 1119, Glens Falls P. C. Co. v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 162 N. Y. 399, 56 N. E. 897, and Kirwan v. American Lithographic Co., 197 N. Y. 413, 90 N. E. 945, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 972, 18 Ann. Cas. 650.
Assuming that the plaintiff had full knowledge of the danger involved in the operation of the machine in question in the condition in which it was, that fact would not preclude a recovery, in view of the recent decision of the Court of Appeals in the case of Fitzwater v. Warren et al., 99 N. E. 1042. In that case it would seem to have been held that public policy precludes an employé from assuming any risk which has been created by the violation of a statute on the part of his employer, and even from waiving the liability of the latter for injtiries occasioned thereby. At all events, the question of the assumption of the risk must be regarded as one for the determination of the jury. Many cases are cited by the learned counsel for the respondent, but I think the facts in each are easily distinguishable from those in the one at bar. As was said by the court in Glens Falls P. C. Co. v. Travelers' Ins. Co., supra, 162 N. Y. 404, 56 N. E. 899:
'"'The necessity for the guard and the character and description of the guard must, of necessity, depend upon the situation, nature and dangerous character of the machinery, and in each case becomes a question of fact."
The plaintiff is entitled on this review, as in a nonsuit, to the most favorable construction which the jury might properly have placed upon the evidence. Simpson v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 141 App. Div. 148, 125 N. Y. Supp. 997.
The exceptions of the plaintiff should be sustained and a new trial granted; costs to abide the event.
THOMAS, WOODWARD, and RICH, JJ., concur.