Deering v. Canfield & Wheeler Co.

85 N.W. 874, 126 Mich. 373, 1901 Mich. LEXIS 743
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedApril 25, 1901
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 85 N.W. 874 (Deering v. Canfield & Wheeler Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Deering v. Canfield & Wheeler Co., 85 N.W. 874, 126 Mich. 373, 1901 Mich. LEXIS 743 (Mich. 1901).

Opinion

Hooker, J.

The plaintiff, a young man of 33 years of age, and familiar with the machine that he was using, was injured by getting his hand in contact with a circular-saw. In proximity to this saw was a guide, which was-originally quite near, but not against, the saw. It is-claimed that this guide got worn, so that the space between it and the saw was greater than it should have-been, and that the defendant’s foreman had promised the plaintiff that it should be fixed at the end of the day upon which he was hurt, a previous like promise having been, broken. It was common for slivers and small thin pieces-that came from the saw to get into this space between the-guide and the saw, and the effect was to bind and injure the saw. It was therefore customary for the operator to-get them out. It was possible to do this in one of three-ways : First, by taking a stick, and pushing them out second, by stopping the saw, which was easily done; or by removing the table, which was practicable by taking-out some bolts. Instead of taking a safe way, the plaintiff took a piece of lath, and pushed so hard upon it as to-break it, when his hand struck the saw, with the result mentioned.

The learned circuit judge was of the opinion that the-plaintiff’s act was negligent, and that he was not entitled to recover; and in this opinion we concur. We also think he assumed the risk of using a stick, which, in some instances, would perhaps be safe.

The judgment is affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Lukovski v. Michigan Central Railroad
129 N.W. 707 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1911)
Stephens v. American Car & Foundry Co.
78 N.E. 335 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1906)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
85 N.W. 874, 126 Mich. 373, 1901 Mich. LEXIS 743, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deering-v-canfield-wheeler-co-mich-1901.