Moore v. W. R. Pickering Lumber Co.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Moore v. W. R. Pickering Lumber Co.

105 La. 504

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJuly 1, 1901

DocketNo. 13,638

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 105 La. 504 (Moore v. W. R. Pickering Lumber Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Moore v. W. R. Pickering Lumber Co., 105 La. 504 (La. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Monkoe, J.

This is an action in damages for personal injuries which the plaintiff claims to have sustained whilst in the employ of the defendant, and by reason of defendant’s negligence.

The defence is that whatever injuries may have befallen the plaintiff were the results of his own negligence, in that “he left his post of duty and exposed himself in a dangerous and hazardous position,” etc.; and, “in the alternative”, that, if plaintiff was injured in the manner set forth, the proximate cause of such injury was the omission of a fellow servant properly to discharge his duty, and that the plaintiff had assumed the risk of such omission and is therefore not entitled to recover.

The evidence, in which there is no serious conflict, establishes the following facts, to-wit:

The defendant company, during the year 1901, and prior thereto, was operating a saw mill in the parish of Vernon, for the purposes of which it employed about 150 men.

On or before the 1st of March, 1900, the mill was “shut down” for repairs and for the putting in of a new engine, and the plaintiff was, at that time, employed in the capacity of mill-wright and general helper.

It does not appear that his employment was limited to the particular work which was then undertaken, or that there was any understanding to the effect that it should terminate when that work was completed. On the contrary, he seems to have been employed as a general utility man, whose services might have been needed in such an establishment the year round. At all events, work having been resumed on the morning of March 19th, he was still in the employ of the defendant.

The evidence shows that the adjustment of certain! “line shafting” was not altogether true, that one of its bearings had a tendency to become heated; and that the plaintiff who though not continuously occupied at any one thing, had been engaged in various jobs during the day, was instructed by the foreman to watch said bearing, and, in the event [506]*506of its becoming heated, to take such steps as were necessary in the premises, the idea being' that he was either to oil the bearing, or call the attention of the man employed as oiler to it. Acting in accordance with these specific instructions, the plaintiff, between three and four o’clock in the afternoon, was going to inspect the bearing, or “box” in question, when he met one Hinson, another employe of defendants, and stopped for a moment to exchange a remark about a “hot box” in another x>art of the mill.

The shaft which has been mentioned was in position five feet above the level of the floor, suxoported by two horizontal beams, six feet apart, the x>oints of contact between the shaft and the beams being the bearings where the heating was feared. Midway between these two beams, a driving pulley, four feet in diameter, and carrying a belt sixteen inches wide and forty feet long, was attached to the shaft.

■The place at which plaintiff stopped was in a thoroughfare, at a point about eight feet from this pulley and equidistant between it and a stairway leading into the engine room. And whilst he was thus stopped, the belt, which the pulley was carrying with great velocity, parted, and flying into space, struck him with such force as to lift him from the floor and to break both of his legá. It appears that the oiler, for his convenience, in order to get from the bearing ón one of the beams mentioned to the bearing on the other, had laid a plank across the two beams, at a distance of about three feet from the pulley, and between the pulley and the place wherd plaintiff received his-injury, and it is, no doubt, a fact that the plaintiff might have crossed in front of the pulley on this plank, instead' of passing along a thoroughfare some five feet away; or, he might have made a circuit which would have obviated the necessity of passing in front of the pulley at all. There is nothing to show, however, that he knew, or had any reason to suspect, that the belt which inflicted the injury was defective, or that the thoroughfare through which he had undertaken to pass was dangerous and should have been avoided. Upon the other hand, it is shown that Striker, the foreman, some time after November 1st, 1899, notified Mace, the superintendent, that “he had better order a new belt, as the one in use was liable to give out — the laps were beginning to show loosening, and better have another to take its place.” It appears from Striker’s testimony that he knew enough about the belt from personal-observation to justify his giving this notice, though he also testifies that he never really examined it, and that his idea in providing a [507]*507new one was to avoid delay in case it gave out. He also testifies that before resuming operations, on March 19th, he had some conversation with Boatman, a man whose special duty it was to look after the belts, from which he concluded that the belt in use was still safe, and hence that it was not then necessary to substitute the new rubber belt, which several months before had been ordered and received at the mill. Mr. Striker, however, distinctly disclaims having examined the belt at any time, and although he intimates that there might have been some doubt upon the subject of the extent of his authority over Boatman, with respect to' belts, we understand him, upon the whole, to mean, that if he had directed that the new belt should be put on, his orders would have been obeyed.

Boatman testifies that he was the “belt man” for the mill and his examination proceeds as follows, to-wit:

“Q. — You say you had inspected that (belt) previous to the accident ? A. — Yes, sir; I had. Q. — Did you find anything wrong about that belt ? A. — -In a practical way, yes, sir. Q. — What was the matter with the belt ? A. — It was sixteen inch, double leather — in making the belts “nowadays, they make four and a half inch joints, or laps; this lap, “you understand, makes the lap of the belt break joints. Q. — Was “there anything wrong with those laps? A. — It needed mending; I “spoke to Mr. Striker, asked him; suggested that he get some leather n that I would repair the belt, that by a little work it would run, prob- “ ably two years. Q. — What was the matter with the belt, Mr. Boat- “ man ? A. — That the joint where it was cemented had become unce- “ mented about two and a half inches back( Q. — Did you do anything “for the belt? A. — I put some rivets in it. Q. — Did you or did you “not condemn that belt? A. — Well, when I go over a belt to work on “it, I take it off the pulley, for I cannot work them on the pulley. “When they are tight enough to work without a tightener, it is too “ tight to work, and when it has a tightener on it, it is too tight to work “ on, particularly when it is a round tooth shaft, or pulley; you have “ to take it off and put it on a bench or on the floor. Q. — Did you, or “ did you not, condemn that belt? (Objected to and the objection overruled.) A. — In a practical way, it was liable to have a shut down; “might have been a month or two months; or not but a day or two. “ Q. — Did you or did you not condemn that belt? A.- — The word ‘con- “ demned’ was not used when I was talking to Mr. Striker. I told him “ it was not practical to use it without doing some repairing; he sug- [508]*508“ gested it might run, and I told him it might run a month or two or “ only a day or two.”

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