161 Ky. 527 | Ky. Ct. App. | 1914
Opinion op the Court by
— Affirming.
In this action for damages for personal injuries by plaintiff, Walter E. Daniels, against defendant, Houston, Stanwood & Gamble Company, the trial court, at the conclusion of the evidence, directed a verdict in favor of the defendant. Plaintiff appeals.
Defendant operates a drill press which is used to drill holes in boiler fronts. There are two cog’ wheels on the press, one a disc bevel gear and the other a mesh bevel gear. The press was set on a base about three feet from the ground. The gearing is about a foot and a half above the base. Plaintiff had been in defendant’s employ for about a year and four or five months. During that time he worked on the drill press for ten or eleven months. About six months before the accident he claims that he stopped work on this machine because it was dangerous, and asked to be assigned to his old job of boiler-front fitter. In this capacity it was his duty to assist other men in carrying the fire fronts and placing them on the drill press. On the day of his injury plaintiff and seven or eight other men had carried a fire-front and put it on the press. Plaintiff got between the drill
Plaintiff’s case is predicated on the failure of defendant to use ordinary care to furnish him a reasonably safe place to work. The principal negligence relied on was the unprotected condition of the gearing of the drill press, and the presence of the wooden wedge on the floor which caused him to stumble. In this state we have no statute requiring the master to cover or protect dangerous machinery. It is not contended that plaintiff was an infant or inexperienced, and therefore entitled to be warned of the danger. He was an experienced workman. He says that he had stopped regular work on the machine because he thought it dangerous. The danger of coming in contact with the gearing was not only plainly observable, but was actually known to and appreciated by the plaintiff. It is not claimed that the press was defective. That being true, it follows that the risk of injury from coming in contact with the gearing was one of the ordinary and usual risks incident to his employment; and it cannot be said that defendant is liable merely because of its failure to guard or protect the machine.
The next question is: Is the defendant liable for permitting the wedge to obstruct the floor? We have repeatedly held that the master is not an insurer of the safety of the place where he puts the servant to work. He is only bound to use ordinary care to furnish the servant a reasonably safe place to work. In order to recover,
Judgment affirmed.