Case Name: Alexander D. Campbell vs. John H. Eveleth
Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Maine
Decision Date: 1890-09-03
Citations: 83 Me. 50
Docket Number: 
Parties: Alexander D. Campbell vs. John H. Eveleth.
Judges: Peters, C. J., Libbey, Foster, Haskell and Wiiiteíiouse, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Maine Reports
Volume: 83
Pages: 50–61

Head Matter:
Alexander D. Campbell vs. John H. Eveleth.
Penobscot.
Opinion September 3, 1890.
Negligence. Master and Servant. Personal Injuries. Defective Machinery. Questions for the jury.
An inexperienced servant does not assume the risk of perils wliieli lie knows not of, and which are not called to his attention; but of such only as he knows, or by the exercise of ordinary care ought to know.
When the negligence of neither party can be conclusively established by a state of facts from which different inferences may be fairly drawn, or upon which fair-minded men may reasonably arrive at different conclusions, the case, under proper instructions, should be submitted to the jury.
A majority of the court are of the opinion that the case falls within this principle. Waltox and Embry, JJ., dissenting.
On report.
The parties agreed, that if the action can be maintained on the plaintiff’s evidence, it should stand for trial; otherwise judgment to be entered for the defendant.
The action was to recover damages for the loss of the plaintiff’s right hand while at work in the defendant’s saw mill' operating a lath machine, which he alleged was defectively constructed, and in the use of which he had not been properly instructed, &e. The declaration is as follows :—
Amended count, charging negligence, inexperience of plaintiff and defendant’s omission to give him proper instructions, &c.
Also, in a plea of the case, for that the said defendant, on the ninth day of April, 1888, was the owner, possessor and operator of a certain saw-mill and fixtures, situate in the town of Shirley, in the county of Piscataquis, then and there used by him for the manufacture of laths and other lumber, which said mill and fixtures, and saws, machines, machinery, tools and appliances placed therein, he was then and there bound to have and maintain in a safe, suitable and well-constructed condition for the safety of his employes therein employed; but the said defendant neglecting his duty in this behalf, did not then and there have and maintain said mill and fixtures, saws, machines, machinery, tools and appliances in a safe, suitable and well constructed condition, for the safety of his employes therein employed ; but on the contrary, said defendant did then and there have and maintain in said mill, a lath machine, composed of a circular saw, gearing, saw bench, and sluice or passageway, to carry off the sawdust, and other refuse from said saw and mill, which said lath machine was, then and there through the carelessness' and negligence of the said defendant, defectively constructed and maintained in this, that there were no sufficient guards to said saw” to protect the person operating the same with due and reasonable care from coming in contact with it while in motion,, and that said sluice or passageway was so narrow, crooked, angular and otherwise improperly and defectively constructed and maintained as to cause the sawdust, and other refuse from said saw to clog in the mouth and other parts of said passageway,, necessitating its frequent clearing out by the lath sawyer, which said clearing out could only be effectively and expeditiously done by a short stick or other implement in the hand of the lath sawyer, necessarily in close proximity to said saw in rapid motion.
"And the said plaintiff was then and there employed by said defendant at sawing laths with said lath machine. And the said plaintiff was then and there in the employ of said defendant, operating said lath machine, he the said plaintiff, being inexperienced in such work, and ignorant of the said dangerous and defective condition of said saw and sluice or passageway, of which said plaintiff’s inexperience and ignorance the said defendant -was fully aware ; yet the said defendant then and there neglected to inform the said plaintiff of said dangerous and defective condition of said lath machine, sluice or passageway, and of the danger of working at said unguarded saw in motion, and said defendant also then and there neglected to inform the said plaintiff of the danger of clearing out said sluice or passageway when the same should become clogged by reason of the defective condition aforesaid of the same.
"And while the said plaintiff was so engaged in operating said lath machine, viz: in removing with due and reasonable .care on Ms part, by means of a short stick held in his right hand, •the sawdust and other i’efuse that had clogged in the mouth of said ¡sluice or passageway by reason of its said defective construction and condition, his said right hand was then and there drawn on do said unguarded saw, and so badly cut and mangled that it had ±o be amputated at the wrist, which caused the said plaintiff great and long continued mental and physical suffering, and put Mm to great expense for nursing, medicine, medical and surgical attendance, and permanently disabled him.
"Which said injury to said plaintiff was caused by reason of .said defective condition of said lath machine, sluice or passageway and said plaintiff’s said ignorance of the same and his said inexperience, and the said neglect of the said defendant, having knowledge of the said ignorance and inexperience of said plaintiff, vto acquaint said plaintiff with said defective condition of said lath machine and said sluice or passageway, and of the danger of working at said unguarded saw, and of the danger of clearing ■out said passageway or sluice when the same should become .clogged as aforesaid.”
Peregrine White, M. Laughlin, with him, for plaintiff.
To justify the court in taking the case from the jury, it must be "perfectly clear” that the plaintiff has not shown that he used due care; otherwise the case must be submitted to the jury. Haclcett v. Middlesex Manf. Co. 101 Mass. 104. "It must be evidence having some legal weight. A mere scintilla of evidence is not sufficient.” Per Postee, J., in Wormell v. Maine Cent. R. R. Co. 79 Maine, 397 ; O'Connor v. Adams, 120 Mass. 431; Coombs v. New Bedford Cordage Co. 102 Id. 600. Duty to instruct plaintiff: Sullivan v. India Mfg. Co. 113 Mass. 399. Cannot escape by delegating this duty to a servant. Whar. Neg. § 859. Plaintiff inexperienced and could not appreciate the danger. Nothing said to him about the necessity and difficulty of clearing out the shute or sawdust spout, or danger attending the doing it. Defendant’s machinery defective ; dangerous in construction, saw was improperly exposed and sawdust shute improperly made.
D. F. Davis and G. A. Bailey, for defendant.
Defendant having introduced no evidence, the question, the facts being undisputed, is one of law, for the Court. Grows v. M. G. R. R. Go. 67 Maine, 100; Burns v. B. & L. R. R. 101 Mass. 50. There was no danger known by the defendant that was not equally well known by the plaintiff. Wheeler v. Wason Mfg. Go. 135 Mass. 294. Plaintiff must show an omission to inform him of something which he needed to know in order to be safe. Ciriack v. Merchants' Woolen Go. 146 Mass. 190.

Opinion:
Virgin, J.
The gravamen of the plaintiff's complaint in his amended count is that he lost his hand while running the defendant's lath machine, on account of his inexperience and the defendant's omission to give Mm such information and instruction as were reasonably necessary and sufficient to enable him to appreciate the perils to which he would be exposed by using the faulty machinery in the course of his employment, and, with reasonable care on his part, to safely perform his work.
The plaintiff" engaged to perform carpenter work upon the defendant's boarding house, already erected but unfinished, to commence as soon as the vuathcr would permit. He had never run a circular saw or other machinery, but had tailed at a rotary three days. Being short of hands in his mill, the defendant, while waiting for the weather to moderate so that work could be resumed upon his boarding house, requested the plaintiff' to work his lath machine which required two persons. After being shown for fifteen to thirty minutes how to work it, the plaintiff, on March 27, was put in charge of his now employment wdth another employe to do the tailing.
From turn to six times a day, the sawdust, accumulating at the bottom of the spout in the edge of the water under the mill or sticking in the angle of the spout a short distance below the floor, filled it up ; when it became necessary to clean it out by one going down and removing the obstructing accumulation at the lower end and the other pushing the sawdust down the spout with a stick.
While being instructed in sawing, the spout did not happen to become clogged, and the plaintiff" received no instruction as to the mode of clearing it.
During the first day or two, whenever the spout became choked, he stopped the saw and removed the sawdust in the manner described, which required some fifteen minutes.
On April 9, after having prosecuted his work ten or eleven days without stopping the saw and while pushing the sawdust down the spout with a stick some two feet in length, his hand which held the stick came in contact with the lower edge of the revolving saw under the saw-bench which was about twenty-two inches above the mouth of the spout in the floor, and was so-severely lacerated as to necessitate amputation at the wrist.
This is not the case of an experienced workman set to operating machinery dangerous and demanding care which, nevertheless, he fully understands and voluntarily assumes the risk incident thereto. The usual danger of contact with such a dangerous implement as a circular saw in rapid motion is obvi ous to the eyes of all who have reached the years of discretion, when it is in plain sight. But the plaintiff's injury was not caused by the revolving saw above the bench, but by the two or three inches of it which protruded through and underneath it and which was less than two feet from the floor and so hidden from view by the length of the bench and the upper horizontal strip three or four inches wide which secured in place the legs of the bench, as not to be visible to the workman's eyes unless they were within eighteen or nineteen inches of the floor.
The inexperienced servant does not assume the risk of perils which he knows not of, and which are not called to his attention ; but of such only as he knows, or by the exercise of ordinary care, ought to know. Hull v. Hall, 78 Maine, 114.
We cannot decide, as matter of law, that the machinery under that saw-bench which the plaintiff wras obliged to use in the course -of his employment, wras in such a condition that a jury would not be authorized to find it unsafe and improper for a new beginner to be put to work upon without proper notice and reasonable instructions relating thereto.
Nor can we say, as matter of lavr, that a jury would not be warranted by the evidence in finding that contributory negligence was not imputable to the plaintiff. It would be absurd to suppose that the plaintiff recklessly destroyed his right hand. There is evidence that 'would warrant the finding that, if the spout had been constructed in accordance with the suggestion of the witness who had built forty mills besides this one, — though be did not complete this ; or if the machine had been boarded xxp as he suggested; or if instead of either, a guard had extended down from the under side of the bench on each side of the saw,— then this injury could not have happened. Nor in all probability would it have occurred, if the defendant had not omitted to inform the plaintiff of that which he needed to know in order to be safe (Sullivan v. India Manf. Co. 113 Mass. 396) and had notified him of the danger to be incurred so frequently each day, in undertaking to aid a defective spout in carrying away the sawdust which it would do without assistance if properly constructed.
The mere fact that the plaintiff shut dowm the saw the first two or three times does not conclusively prove that he appreciated the peril of not doing so. Numerous explanations suggest themselves when taken in connection with the time required to stop, and set in motion again the saw. And even if he did know the danger, such knowledge would not, as a matter of law, impute contributory negligence to him such as would forbid the finding to the contrary; for it "would be mere evidence of such negligence to be considered along with the other facts and circumstances in the case. Kane v. Northern Centr. R. R. Co. 128 U. S. 91. Guthrie v. Me. Centr. R. R. Co, 81 Maine, 572.
Moreover, without expressing our own opinion as to what the verdict should be, the fact that fair-minded men,— as seen by the want of unanimity on the part of this court, — .might reasonably reach different conclusions upon the issues whether the injury was caused by the contributory negligence of the plaintiff', or by the negligent omission of the defendant to inform and reasonably instruct the plaintiff as to the peril to which he might be exposed in attempting to clear the defective spout without stopping the saw; we think that it was a question which under proper instructions should be submitted to the jury. Nugent v. B. C. & M. R. R. Co. 80 Maine, 70.
Case to stand for trial.
Peters, C. J., Libbey, Foster, Haskell and Wiiiteíiouse, JJ., concurred.