139 Ky. 623 | Ky. Ct. App. | 1905
Opinion op the Court by
Affirming*
Appellee is a corporation owning and operating, a distillery in Nelson county. Connected with the distillery are two mills run by steam in which meal is made for the manufacture of whiskey. One of these mills is known as the Noy patent and the other as the Gray patent.
Appellant is a skilled machinist of many years’ experience, a large part of which had been passed in appellee’s service. Both mills were set up and put in operation by appellant as an employe of appellee, the Gray mill last. This mill was an old one and had not been in use for some time, for which reason it was taken apart and repaired by appellant, before he set it up and started it to running.
After starting the mill appellant, in attempting to test the quality of the meal it was producing, had the misfortune to get his hand caught between the rollers and greatly mangled, which necessitated its amputation. For the injuries thus sustained he sued a}Dpellee in the circuit court, laying his damages at $10,000.00.
It was charged in the petition that appellant’s injuries were caused by the gross negligence of appellee in having and using in its distillery an unsafe and defective mill, dangerous to operate, which fact was known to it, but unknown to appellant, and that he was required to test the work of this mill without warning from appellee of the danger of doing so.
The trial resulted in a verdict for appellee, the jury having so found under a peremptory instruction given by the court at the conclusion of appellant’s evidence, consequently, judgment was entered dismissing the petition at appellant’s cost.
It was contended by appellant in his petition and grounds for a new trial, and is now urged in his behalf, that the peremptory instruction was unauthorized for the reason that it was the duty of appellee to furnish appellant, while in its service, with reasonably safe machinery and place for the performance of the work required of him and that appellant' was himself under no legal duty to examine or discover, defects or danger in the machinery or place of work, unless they were patent and obvious to a person of his understanding and experience.
Such is undoubtedly the rule of law where examination and inspection is not in the line of the servant’s employment or duty. So in determining whether the rule contended for by learned counsel •for appellant should apply to this case, we must look to the facts presented by the evidence introduced in his- behalf.
It was his duty to test the quality of the meal the mill produced, which duty could be performed only by inserting his hand in the meal and pressing or sifting it with the fingers. In testing the 'meal it was likewise his duty to use ordinary care to protect himself from injury; According to his own testimony there was but one way in which appellant could have been injured by the mill and that was to get his fingers caught between the rollers as was done. As he attempted with his hand to catch the meal falling from the meal board which conducts it from the upper rollers and drops it into those below with the slight vibratory motion necessary to prevent its adhering to the meal board, his hand struck against the meal board'which in turn knocked his fingers against the rollers below causing them to be caught therein and greatly mangled.
By getting the meal from the receptacle designed for it after leaving the rollers, appellant might have-made the required test without risk or injury to himself, but in attempting it as he did, he admitted
It is, however, insisted for appellant that the danger he encountered in making the examination of the meal was increased by the want of sufficient light in the room where the mill was situated and the dust arising from the mill. If these conditions existed they were necessarily known (to appellant when and before his injuries were received and should have deterred him from the attempt to test the work of the mill under such unfavorable circumstances, or at any rate impelled him to exercise the greater care in making it. It does not, however, appear from the evidence that there was any less light in the mill room when appellant was injured than usual, or when the mill was set up and put in operation by him.
We conclude, therefore, that the evidence disclosed by the record presented no ground for fastening upon appellee responsibility for appellant’s injuries, but upon the other hand it shows that they resulted from his own negligence.
In many cases decided by this court the master has been held liable for injuries resulting to the servant from the negligence of the former in failing to provide him with reasonably safe tools, machinery
In the case at bar, appellant according to the proof, knew and voluntarily encountered the danger of testing the quality of the meal in the manner in which it was attempted by him, and in addition it was his duty under his employment by appellee to examine and know that the machinery of the mill was in proper condition and reasonably safe for use and free from defects. There was no error, therefore, in the giving of the peremptory instruction.
Wherefore the judgment is affirmed.