Case Name: William Knapp et al. v. Everett P. Holden
Court: Ohio Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1912-07-20
Citations: 24 Ohio C.C. Dec. 415
Docket Number: 
Parties: William Knapp et al. v. Everett P. Holden.
Judges: Swing, Jones and Smith, JJ.
Reporter: Ohio Circuit Court Decisions
Volume: 24
Pages: 415–416

Head Matter:
MASTER AND SERVANT.
[Hamilton (1st) Circuit Court,
July 20, 1912.]
Swing, Jones and Smith, JJ.
William Knapp et al. v. Everett P. Holden.
Emery Wheel a Familiar and Simple Tool not within Statutory Exemption of Assumed Risks.
An emery wheel is a “simple tool” within the meaning of Sec. 6245 G. C. and where the evidence discloses that the injured plaintiff had worked at an emery wheel for more than thirty years and at the particular wheel by which he was injured for two years, a motion lies to direct a verdict for the defendant.
Error to common pleas court.
Matthews & Matthews, for plaintiff in error:
Cited and commented upon the following authorities: McGill v. Traction Co. 79 Ohio St. 203 [86 N. E. Rep. 989; 19 h. R. A. (N. S.) 793; 328 Am. St. Rep. 705] ; Bowen v. Bail-way, 117 111. App. 9; Suchamal v. Maxwell, 344 111. App. 543; Webster Mfg. Co. v. Nisbett, 205 111. 275 [68 N. E. Rep. 936] ; International Packing Co. v. Kretowicz, 119 111. App. 488; Conley v.. Express Co. 87 Me. 353 [32 Atl. Rep. 965] ; Meador v. Railway, 138 Ind. 290 [37 N. E. Rep. 721; 46 Am. St. Rep. 384] ; Michael v. Stanley, 75 Md. 464 [23 Atl. Rep. 1094] ; O’Keefe v. Thorne, 16 Atl. .Rep. 737 (Pa.); Ciriack v. Woolen Co. 146 Mass. 182 [15 N. E. Rep. 579; 4 Am. St. Rep. 307] ; Bennett v. Railway, 102 U. S. 577 [26 L. Éd. 235] ; Stamford Oil Co. v. Barnes, 103 Tex. 409 [128 S. W. Rep. 375; 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1218] ; Dresser, Employ. Liabil. See. 114; Shearman & Redfield, Negligence (5 ed.) Sec. 704; Indemaur v. Dames, L. R. 1 C. P. 274; Ives v. Railxoay, 201 N. Y; 271 [94 N. E. Rep. 431; 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 162; Ann. Cas. 1912 B. 156]; Southern Turpentine Co. v. Douglass, 61 Fla. 424 [54 So. Rep. 385] ; Argersinger v. Power Co. 164 Mich. 282 [129 N. W. Rep. 889] ; State v. Creamer, 85 Ohio St. 349 [97 N. E. Rep. 602; 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 694] ; Baltimore <& O. Ry. v. Lockwood, 72 Ohio St. 586 [74 N. E. Rep. 1071]; Blat.ehfield, Instructions Sec. 94; Klunk v. Railway, 74 Ohio St. 125 [77 N. E. Rep. 752] ; Cincinnati Trac. Co. v. Forrest, 73 Ohio St. 1 [75 N. E. Rep. 818] ; Mead. v. McGraw, 19 Ohio St. 55; Hazen v. Snodgrass, 33 O. C. C. 512 (14 N. 'S. 483); Cleveland Ry. v. Richerson, 10 Circ. Dec. 326 (19 R. 385).
C. M. Cist, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
JONES, J.
The court below erred in not sustaining the motion made-at the close of, all the evidence for a verdict in favor of defendants.
The evidence shows the emery wheel which the defendant in error was operating to have been a "simple tool" and one with which he was familiar. He had worked upon this wheel for two years and had been an emery-wheel worker for over thirty years. Under such state of facts Sec. 6245 G. C. does not apply.
•The third defense of the answer, was fully sustained by the evidence and such evidence bars recovery.
Judgment reversed and judgment given for plaintiffs in error.
Swing and Smith, JJ., concur.