Trumann Cooperage Co. v. Dillard

Eighth Circuit

Trumann Cooperage Co. v. Dillard

254 F. 693, 166 C.C.A. 191, 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 1354

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedOctober 28, 1918

DocketNo. 5107

StatusPublished

This text of 254 F. 693 (Trumann Cooperage Co. v. Dillard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Trumann Cooperage Co. v. Dillard, 254 F. 693, 166 C.C.A. 191, 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 1354 (8th Cir. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

HOOK, Circuit Judge.

[1] Dillard recovered a judgment against the Trumann Cooperage Company for personal injuries sustained in its service and caused by defective machinery. He was hit by a piece of wood thrown by a rapidly revolving drop saw, used to cut into short lengths logs held by mechanical dogs operated by steam. The negli[694]*694gence charged was in a defective condition of the dogs, which permitted the logs to wabble and be thrown out of position while being cut.

It is Urged that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the verdict; but there was substantial testimony that the dogs were working defectively, that the company knew it and failed to repair, and that the accident consequently resulted. Counsel weigh it too nicely and technically. The testimony of men as to conditions and occurrences which they have observed in the ordinary walks of life and with which they are familiar should be taken more roughly and practically.

[2] Complaint is also made that a witness was allowed to testify that, if the dogs had held the log, the piece would not have been thrown by the saw. The witness had seen the accident. He was a man of six years’ experience as a sawyer, had operated drop saws, and for five years had been in the service of the defendant in nearly every capacity, except that of foreman. The court did not err in admitting the testimony. Gila Valley, Globe & Northern Ry. Co. v. Lyon, 203 U. S. 465, 474, 27 Sup. Ct. 145, 51 L. Ed. 276.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

HOOK, Circuit Judge.

[1] Dillard recovered a judgment against the Trumann Cooperage Company for personal injuries sustained in its service and caused by defective machinery. He was hit by a piece of wood thrown by a rapidly revolving drop saw, used to cut into short lengths logs held by mechanical dogs operated by steam. The negli[694]*694gence charged was in a defective condition of the dogs, which permitted the logs to wabble and be thrown out of position while being cut.

It is Urged that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the verdict; but there was substantial testimony that the dogs were working defectively, that the company knew it and failed to repair, and that the accident consequently resulted. Counsel weigh it too nicely and technically. The testimony of men as to conditions and occurrences which they have observed in the ordinary walks of life and with which they are familiar should be taken more roughly and practically.

[2] Complaint is also made that a witness was allowed to testify that, if the dogs had held the log, the piece would not have been thrown by the saw. The witness had seen the accident. He was a man of six years’ experience as a sawyer, had operated drop saws, and for five years had been in the service of the defendant in nearly every capacity, except that of foreman. The court did not err in admitting the testimony. Gila Valley, Globe & Northern Ry. Co. v. Lyon, 203 U. S. 465, 474, 27 Sup. Ct. 145, 51 L. Ed. 276.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 F. 693, 166 C.C.A. 191, 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 1354, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trumann-cooperage-co-v-dillard-ca8-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack