84 Ga. 14 | Ga. | 1889
According to the declaration, the plaintiff, a skilled carpenter and machinist, erected and put up machinery for the defendant company which he knew was unsafe, as to certain parts of it, for the lack of self-oilers. He knew that no employe could be relied upon to keep it oiled, and that the omission to oil it properly would render it dangerous. He admonished the company of the danger, protested more than once- against the omission to supply the needed self-oilers, and warned the company, even down to the day he was injured, to have the oiling duly attended to. But the company, though promising to heed his repeated notices and warnings, failed to do so. He nevertheless remained in its employment, and suffered himself to continue charged with the duty of giving such attention to the machinery, from time to time (save as to oiling and running it), as might be needed, and of performing in the capacity of carpenter and machinist everything requisite to be done, or that he might be ordered to do. Twice on the same day his services became requisite in the spinning-room to make corrections or repairs in the machinery. The first time the trouble was caused by the want of oiling, and this he discovered and made known to the boss. Later in the day, he was again called upon in a sudden emergency by the boss to look after the shafting, which was without self-oilers, and put it in order. He found the main belt had been taken off) and that the shafting had ceased running and was still. For lack of oil, the end of the shaft and the hanger had become very hot, but he did not know that the oiling had been neglected, or that the “babbit” had completely melted. "Whilst he was in the act of taking off" the belts with extra care, the shaft and five pulleys, the whole weighing over 600 pounds, fell upon him and he was severely injured. The melting of the “babbit” was the immediate cause of
A demurrer, part of. it going to the whole declaration, was overruled; and thus the question arises whether a cause of action is set forth.
The machinery was put up by the plaintiff himself, and was not afterwards to.be used by him but by others. His subsequent concern with it wa3 only to repair it and keep it in order. Whatever defects it had he knew; and the failure to oil it properly was foreseen and correctly predicted by himself. One instance of such failure had occurred on. the very day he was injured, and this was brought to his attention. If he did not know of the second failure specifically, it was within his general knowledge as something likely to occur; and when he saw that the machinery was stopped, and that the stoppage was because of something wrong where there were no self-oilers, he could and should have anticipated that it had again occurred. He was not ignorant that the end of the shaft and the hanger had become very hot. To what should he have ascribed the heating but a lack of oil ? He did not know that the “babbit” had completely melted, but he does not allege ignorance that it had melted in some degree; and the declaration avers that the complete melting of the “babbit” was the immediate cause of the falling of the shaft. While it is the duty of a master to furnish his servant safe machinery for use, he is under no duty to furnish his machinist with safe machinery to be repaired, or to keep it safe whilst repairs are in progress. Precisely because it is unsafe for use, repairs are often necessary. The physician might as well insist on having a well patient to be treated and cured, as the machinist to have sound and safe machinery to be repaired.