Court Opinion

ID: 9810928
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:04:48.528794+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:40:21.817225
License: Public Domain

Clark, J.,
dissenting. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff, a minor at the time of the injury, was' employed by the defendant under a contract with his father; that he was “to operate the dryer, a position in which no special skill or knowledge of machinery was required,” and that it was expressly agreed “that the plaintiff should not be required to work in any department * * * where there was danger of receiving injury from the operation of machinery, * * * the defendant being informed that he was unskilled in the use of machinery and ignorant of the dangers attending its operations.” That the defendant had a planer which it failed to provide with proper appliances' to insure the safety of its employees, which was also defective and out of repair, so that it became clogged, and that the defendant negligently ordered the plaintiff to assist in operating said planer, and negligently failed to inform him of its defective and danger*612ous condition, or to instruct him in its use, and plaintiff being ignorant thereof, and of the dangers attending its operation, and knowing if he refused to obey he would be discharged, began work at said planer when ordered, and his right hand becoming caught in the machine, all the fingers and part of the thumb were cut off, permanently disabling the plaintiff. This is the substance, somewhat condensed, of the complaint.
J. A. Kiser, the plaintiff’s father, testified that his contract was that his son was not to work where there was any danger from machinery, and that his son was moved without his knowledge or consent and put to work in .cooper shop, where his fingers were cut off by the knives of the planer.
William Kiser testified that he was ordered by Superintendent Terry to make thirty-two barrels that day, and asked for more help, and two men were sent him and commenced work, one of them the plaintiff; that he knew the plaintiff did not know anything about the machine, and he started to him to show him about the machine, but the plaintiff was cut before he got there; that shavings were piled about the machine so that plaintiff could not have seen the knives if he had known they were there; that he had been trying for several days to get the shavings moved out of the way, and had told Superintendent Terry this ought to be done; that there was a protector or hood over the knives in front, but none over the rear knives, and if there had been, it would have prevented any one getting hurt; that the shavings cut by the front knives fall over the under knives; that if this machine had had the same appliances that are on other planers, he knows that it would not have clogged.
The plaintiff testified that he had been working at the dryer; that Terry ordered him to go up and help in the barrel factory; that he was injured while trying to get the shavings out of the way so the plank would come through the ma*613chine; that he tried to knock the shapings away, and his' hand was cut while doing this; that he had no instructions prior thereto about operating this machine; that he could not see the knives which cut his hand, the shavings being in the way, besides he could not see them without getting down and looking; that there was a rake in the mill, but it could not be used to any advantage, because the shavings were piled up.
W. H. Sowers, witness for the defendant, said on cross-examination that he did not see the rake there that morning, it may have been covered up in the shavings; that this was a dangerous piece of machinery for an inexperienced man to work at without instructions, and he does not know of any instructions being given to the plaintiff as to this machine; that the accumulation of shavings would have something to do with preventing a party from seeing the danger of the machine; that the evening before the accident he heard William Kiser tell Terry that a good many shavings had accumulated, and he would like to have them removed; that the accumulation of shavings increased the danger of all who came around the planer; that when the plaintiff was injured the shavings were piled up all around the planer two or three feet deep, except where the feeder and off-bearer stood, some four feet away; that this machine was not one with modern appliances, or it would not have been necessary to ralee the shavings from it; that these modern appliances take away the shavings by suction, and also protect the hands from exposure to the knives; that such modern appliances have been in use to his knowledge six or eight years; that the plaintiff, prior to the evening before, had never worked in the shop. This was in cross-examination of one of the defendant’s witnesses. There was other evidence for the plaintiff, and evidence in contradiction by the defendant, but on a motion to nonsuit, it is only necessary to consider if there is any evidence tending to show negligence; if so, its weight is for the jury.
*614There is both allegation and evidence, as above appears, that the defendant agreed that the plaintiff would not be put to work at dangerous machinery; that the plaintiff, a minor, was inexperienced and unaware of the danger attendant upon a planer, which the defendant’s' witness says was a dangerous machine for an inexperienced worker, and that suddenly, in violation of the contract, the defendant’s superintendent ordered the plaintiff to work at said machine; without giving him any instructions, and when the machine was clogged by shavings, concealing the knives underneath, which, besides* had no guards upon them; that the machine was unprovided with modern appliances, which the defendant’s witness stated had been in use to his knowledge six or eight years, and which he says would have prevented any accumulation of shavings, and have also1 protected the plaintiff’s hands; the same witness further Said he saw no rake there that evening, and it may have been covered up in the shavings, which were piled up two or three feet deep all around the planer. This was certainly testimony tending to prove negligence, which the Judge properly submitted to the jury. That under these circumstances, not seeing the knives underneath, and seeing, guards on the knives above, and being wholly uninstructed as to this machine, which was entirely new to him, and seeing no rake around, the plaintiff should have attempted to clear the shavings away with his hands, the only method he knew, does not present such a state of facts that the Court can d& clare, as' a matter of law, that the defendant’s allegation of contributory negligence was proved. Contributory negligence is an affirmative defence, and if there is no¡ evidence, the jury must answer it “No.” Sims v. Lindsay, 122 N. C., 678. Here, there being conflicting evidence, the jury answered that issue “No,” and the first issue “Yes,” and if there was any error in such responses, it was not an error of law but an error of fact, and hence not reviewable on appeal.
*615In Turner v. Lumber Co., 119 N. C., at page 399, this Court said.: “If the plaintiff was inexperienced in the use of machinery, and the knives were so arranged as to make them a hidden danger, such a danger is not to be obvious to inspection, then, if the defendant, by the use of ordinary care, could have foreseen the happening of the accident, it became its duty either to provide an adequate protection against the knives, or to give the plaintiff proper warning of the danger.” Here, it did neither.
Among many similar cases that can be cited are Myers v. Lumber Co., 129 N. C., 252, where shavings were allowed to accumulate and the plaintiff slipped and fell against a saw running naked without a guard; also Dorsett v. Mfg. Co., at this term, in which the plaintiff was caught in cog wheels revolving near him. In both these cases, and many others similar, it was held that the question of negligence was for the jury. This is a far stronger case, for in neither of the above two cases was the plaintiff young and inexperienced, nor put to work at a dangerous machine without instructions, and contrary to his father’s contract, which was that he should not be exposed to such risks.
The other exceptions are without merit, and require no discussion.
Douglas, J., concurs in the dissenting opinion.