Case Name: FLEMING v. BUSWELL et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1899-03-22
Citations: 57 N.Y.S. 230
Docket Number: 
Parties: FLEMING v. BUSWELL et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 57
Pages: 230–236

Head Matter:
(39 App. Div. 196.)
FLEMING v. BUSWELL et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
March 22, 1899.)
Master and Servant—Injuries to Servant—Contributory Negligence.
Some feet above the floor of a mill was a horizontal shaft, connected with machinery below by a belt, which, when in use, rested on a tight pulley on the shaft; and when not, on a loose pulley. A safe instrument was provided with which to shift the belt from one pulley to- the other, and, to do so, it was necessary to get upon a raised platform. Bold, that if the employs whose duty it was to shift the belt used his hands in doing so, and the sudden moving of the belt caused him to step on the edge of the platform, which gave way, he was guilty of negligence, and the employer would not be liable, though the edge of the platform, was- defective.
McLennan and Spring, JJ., dissenting.
Appeal from trial term, Cattaraugus county.
Action by Fred Fleming against Charles H. Buswell' and others. A verdict was rendered for plaintiff, and from a judgment entered thereon, and from an order denying a new trial, defendants appeal.
Reversed.
Argued before HARDEST, P. J., and FOLLETT, ADAMS, McLENNÁH, and SPRING-, JJ.
Fred L. Eaton, for appellants.
F. W. Kruse, for respondent

Opinion:
FOLLETT, J.
This action was"begun September 26, 1896', to recover damages for a personal injury caused, it is alleged, by the negligence of the defendants, who are partners under the firm name of Buswell, Hubbard & Co., and engaged in tanning hides at Olean, N. Y. The plaintiff had been employed in tanneries at Latonia, Pa., and at Elmira, N. Y., for 3½ years before he was first employed, in May, 1895, by the defendants, for whom he then worked about 3 months. About May 25, 1896, the plaintiff again entered defendants' service, as a grinder of bark, and continued until June 3, 1896, when he was injured. The bark mill operated by the- plaintiff was-in a building about 20 feet square and 18 feet high, and is known as the "bark shed" or "bark house." The power which operates the-bark mill is furnished by a steam engine located in the engine house, from which a horizontal shaft extends "through the' upper part of the bark house, and over the bark mill, and is connected with it by a perpendicular shaft extending down to the bark mill. Connected with the bark mill is a bark carrier, which removes- from the mill the ground bark. The power which operates the bark carrier is communicated by another horizontal shaft, extending from the engine-house through the upper part .of the bark shed, about 15 feet above-the floor, which shaft is connected with the bark carrier by a belt On this horizontal shaft there is a tight pulley, and by the side of the tight pulley is a loose pulley. When the bark mill and carrier • were in operation, the belt connecting the carrier with the shaft was-on the tight pulley. In the afternoon of June 2, 1896, an accident occurred to the bark mill, which made it improper to continue its-use until repaired; and the plaintiff, before leaving his work, threw the bark mill out of gear, so that the power communicated by the-perpendicular shaft would not set the mill in motion. On the morn- - ing of June 3d, when the plaintiff entered the bark shed, the horizontal shaft, which by means of the belt communicated power to-the bark carrier, was in motion; the belt being on the tight pulley. The result was that friction was caused, and the belt was in danger of being injured by the heat so developed. Underneath the two horizontal shafts and pulleys was a platform 10 or 12 feet in length,, and about 3 feet in width, constructed of three hemlock planks,, which was about 12 feet above the floor of the bark house. This-platform was approached by an inclined plane, made of planks, extending from the floor of the bark house to the level of the platform. It was part of the daily duty of the plaintiff to pass up the inclined plane, enter upon the platform, and oil the machinery above while standing on the platform, which duty he had performed during the .nine days he had been employed by the defendants. For the purpose of preventing the friction between the belt and tight pulley,, caused by the motion of the shaft, the plaintiff entered upon the platform, and attempted to shift the belt from "the tight to the loose pulley. To facilitate shifting the belt from one pulley to the other,, a belt shifter was provided by the defendants, which if was the duty of the plaintiff to use. He testified, "I had taken the belt off lots of times, and it went off easily." After making two ineffectual attempts to change the belt from the tight to the loose pulley by-means of the belt shifter, he fell to the floor below, fracturing and' dislocating his left elbow, spraining his left ankle, and bruising bis-left side.
The crucial question is, precisely how was the accident caused?' The plaintiff asserted that one of the outside planks of the platform, was not securely supported or fastened in place, and that when he-stepped on the outer edge of this plank it tipped down under his-weight, and he was precipitated to the floor, 12 feet below. The plaintiff testified that when he felt the plank giving way under him-he seized hold of the belt (a part of which had been changed from the tight to the loose pulley, and was in motion) to support himself, and was carried by the belt a little distance before he fell to the floor below. The defendants contend that the accident was caused by the plaintiff neglecting to use the belt shifter, and attempting to shift the belt with his hands, and that while so attempting to make the change he was injured by the belt and pulleys, and thrown to the floor by the moving belt, and that the accident was not caused by an insecure plank. In case the accident was solely caused by the defendants furnishing a dangerous platform on which the plaintiff was required to work, the defendants are liable for the consequences; but if, on the other hand, the plaintiff was injured by negligently discarding the use of the belt shifter, concededly a safe- implement, and attempting to shift the belt with his hands,, the de^ fendants are not liable, for the accident was the result, in part, of the plaintiff's contributory negligence. The jury found, after a sharply-contested trial, that the accident was caused by the tipping of the insecure plank. The court was requested by the defendants to charge "that if the plaintiff attempted to shift the belt by taking hold of it with his hands, and he was caused to step back by reason of his being carelessly in clos'e proximity to the belt when it started, he cannot recover, even if they find that the outer edge of the platform tipped." This request embraces the proposition that in case the jury found that the accident was initiated by the attempt of the plaintiff to shift the belt with his hands, instead of with the belt shifter, and, to carry out this purpose, he stepped upon a loose plank and fell, the defendants are not liable. The learned trial court declined to charge on this question differently from what it had charged, and an exception was taken. An examination of the charge fails to disclose any instruction upon this proposition. The court had instructed the jury that, in case they sustained the plaintiff's theory as to the cause of the accident, he was entitled to recover, but, in case they sustained the defendants' theory as to the cause of the accident, the plaintiff could not recover. The court did not instruct the jury that in case they found that the plaintiff, in a negligent attempt to shift the belt with his hands instead of with the belt shifter, was, by the motion suddenly imparted to the belt, caused to step away from it, and upon a plank negligently left insecured, the defendants would not be liable, because the accident occurred from two concurring causes, one of which was brought into existence by the plaintiff's negligence, and directly contributed to bring into operation, . or render effective, the other cause. While the two causes mentioned in the request to charge, if found by the jury to exist, were not concurrent in the sense of occupying exactly the same space of time (coincident or contemporaneous), they were concurrent in the sense of acting conjointly, and connectedly co-operating and contributing to produce the result (the accident). Whart. Law Diet.; Murray, Diet.; Cent. Diet. Concurrent causes, as secondly defined, have the same legal effect in the law of negligence as those first defined. There was evidence which would have sustained a finding that the accident occurred in the manner indicated .by the request. Defendants' superintendent testified that he saw the plaintiff immediately after the accident, and asked him how it occurred, "and he [plaintiff] said he took hold of the belt to put it onto the loose pulley, and the belt threw him." The plaintiff testified:
"Of course, I was not so very close; but, as soon as the belt began to move, it jerked a little, and I stepped back close to the loose plank at the edge, and the plank moved a little under my feet. Of course, X could not get onto anything else, and I grabbed the belt, or I had to fall."
I think the court erred in refusing this instruction, for the reason that, if the jury had found that the accident was caused in the manner indicated by the request, the negligent act of the plaintiff directly contributed to cause the accident.
For this error the judgment and order should be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellants to abide the event. All concur, except McLENNAN and SPRING, JJ., who dissent.
The action was commenced on the 26th day of September, 1896, to recover for injuries sustained by the plaintiff in an accident which occurred on the 3d day of June, 1896, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendants. At the time in question the defendants were co-partners, engaged In the tannery business, in the city of Olean, N. Y. They occupied a building for such purpose, in which there was a line shaft (so called) extending its entire length, and used for the purpose of "propelling machinery by means of belts which went upon pulleys upon such shaft. At the place of the accident, and under or near said shaft, the defendants had erected a platform for their employés to go upon whenever it became necessary for them to shift a belt from a loose to a tight pulley, or vice versa. It was intended that such belt should be shifted from one pulley to another by means of a lever, so shaped at one end that it would catch the belt, and by moving the other end shift it from one pulley to the other. This lever was operated by a person upon the platform at such shaft. The plaintiff was in the employ of the defendants at the time of the accident, and had been continuously for nearly a month previous to that time. He was charged with the duty of looking after the machinery operated by the defendants, and bis previous experience in such work was such that it may be assumed that he was reasonably familiar with such machinery, and the manner of operating it. On the day of the accident the belt connected with the shaft in question became stationary upon the tight pulley, and the friction caused it to smoke or burn; 'and it became necessary to move such belt from the tight pulley to the loose pulley, which would relieve the friction and stop the machinery. To do this, the plaintiff went upon the platform in question, to change the belt from the tight pulley to the loose pulley; and while so engaged the accident occurred, and the injuries complained of were received by the plaintiff.