6 Ind. App. 677 | Ind. Ct. App. | 1893
Tlie appellee sued the appellants to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by him through and by the alleged negligent acts and conduct on the part of appellants. The complaint, after stating the business in which appellants were engaged, and describing the location where it was carried on, then further alleges that appellants operated in their establishment a very large and powerful printing press called the “Babcock Printer.” A full description of this machine is given, and it is averred that the removal of a certain heavy iron roller from its place in the press was a work of great hazard, while the belt communicating power to the press was revolving on the loose pulley at the side of the machine; that at the time the appellee received his injury he was a boy about seventeen years of age of immature judgment and experience, and ignorant of, and uninstructed in respect to, the hazard and peril stated; that he was learning the trade of “pressman ” in said establishment, by and with the consent and .approval of appellants, and under the direction and control of their foreman; that'appellee was ordered by the
There was a trial by jury, and a verdict for appellee in the sum of one thousand dollars. The j ury also returned answers to certain interrogatories submitted by the appel
The appellee asserts that the motion for a new trial was never properly presented to the trial court, and for that reason this court should not consider it. The basis for this claim is that the record does not affirmatively show its presentation to the trial court, and that this court will not assume anything not affirmatively shown by the record in order to overthrow the judgment. Cline v. Lindsey, 110 Ind. 337; Graves v. Duckwall, 103 Ind. 560. And, further, that the appellee is entitled to everything in the record which may prevent a reversal upon the errors assigned. Martin v. Martin, 74 Ind. 207. It is true that a motion for a new trial must be presented to the court. Filing it with the clerk alone is not sufficient. Emison, Trustee, v. Shepard, Admr., 121 Ind. 184; Gilbert v. Hall, 115 Ind. 549.
The record in this case, however, shows that the cause was tried “before the Honorable Edgar A. Brown, sole Judge of the said Marion Circuit Court.”
It also further appears that on the 18th day of February, 1891, being the thirty-ninth juridical day of the January term, 1891, the jury returned its verdict into open court. “ And afterwards, to wit, on the 26th day of February, 1891, being the forty-sixth juridical day of the January term, 1891, of said court, before the same honorable judge, the following proceedings were had herein, that is to say: Come now the defendants, by their attorneys, and file their motion and written reasons for a new trial, in this cause, in the words and figures following, viz.” Then follows, in the record, the action of the court. At the next succeeding March term of the court, this motion was overruled. It is not sufficient to present the motion and written causes to the clerk, and request that the same be placed among the files of his office, but the motion must be brought to the attention and knowledge of the
William H. Levey and Louis H. Leyey were partners, •carrying on the business of printing, in Indianapolis, Indiana. In May, 1890, the firm had four printing presses, one of which was called a Babcock press, two were called .Potter presses, and one a Cincinnati stop press. The Cincinnati press was a small one, and the Potter presses were smaller than the Babcock press. The presses were operated by steam power. There were ten persons, including apprentices, employed in the establishment. The work was in charge of a foi'eman. On the 22d day of January, 1888, the appellee Isaac Bigelow became an apprentice in this printing establishment. He desired to learn the trade of a pressman. At the time of beginning work for the appellants, the appellee was sixteen years and four months old. Before commencing to w.ork in such establishment, appellee had no knowledge of the printing business or the press. He was placed under the control of the appellants’ foreman. He was bright, intelligent, and active, and possessed at least usual physical strength for one of his age. He was injured while working about the Babcock press, on the morning of the 27th of May, 1890. He worked continuously for appellants from the 22d day of January, 1888, to the time of his injury, being a period of two years and four months. He was employed in various ways, and at different parts of the work carried on by appellants. Before the injury, appellee had assisted in taking the Babcock press apart, and in setting it up again in a new location. This Babcock printing press was a machine upon which an employe might be injured, but it was not •an especially dangerous machine, nor were its operations and construction difficult to comprehend. The appellee 'was familiar with its construction and the method of op
'On the morning of the day when the injury was inflicted, .-appellee was preparing to begin the operation of the press, when he discovered that there was a broken cog in the machinery which operated the roller, and informed the foreman of'the fact. The foreman directed him to remove the roller from the press and take it to a machine shop :and have it repaired. There was at the time another j apprentice and journeymen about the place in the building, and the apprentice had just been assisting appellee 'in some work he was doing about the press, but had gone to some other part of the room. At this time the belt was running on the loose pulley. Without asking any assistance, appellee undertook to remove the roller, and without securing the shifter in any manner, or throwing the belt from the pulley at the counter-shaft above, he •stepped inside the frame of the press, lifted the roller from its bed, passed it to the north until the end carrying the projecting spool extended beyond the shifter, and then drew it toward the south, when the spool or spindle ■caught upon the shifter, and palled the shifter toward the press. This shifted the belt from the loose pulley to the
In making this summary, we have given the appellee the advantage of every conflict in the evidence, and resolved every doubt in his favor. At the request of appellants, the -court submitted certain Interrogatories to the jury to be answered with their general verdict. The interrogatories and answers are as follows:
“ First. Bid not the plaintiff know, before he received the injury of which he complained, that it was unsafe to stand inside the frame of the printing press while engaged in removing the roller, unless the belt was removed from the pulleys at the counter-shaft, or the shifter was fastened*690 so that it could not be moved by coming in contact with the roller ?
“Answer. ‘No.’
“ Second. ' Did not the plaintiff know, before he received the injury of which he complains, that the roller could be-removed by one person without danger, if the belt was removed from the pulleys at the counter-shaft, or the shifter was tied or otherwise fastened, so that it could not be moved ?
“Answer. ‘No.’
“ Third. Had not the plaintiff himself, at various times, before he received the injury of which he complains, while working about the printing press in question, removed the belt from the pulleys at the counter-shaft, and tied back the shifter, and fastened it back with a stick, so as to prevent it being moved while he was engaged in his work ?
“Answer. ‘No.’
“ Fourth. If you answer the last interrogatory in the affirmative, did not the plaintiff, in so acting, do so because he knew there was danger of the press being started by the shifter being moved, while he was engaged in his. work ?
“Answer. ‘No.’
“Fifth. Did not the plaintiff' know, or could he not have known if he had reflected or looked before receiving the injury of which he complains, that there was danger of the end of the roller coming in contact with the shifter and starting the press, if he should attempt to remove the roller by standing inside the frame, and pushing the end of the roller through the frame towards the shifter, and then withdrawing it towards himself ?
“Answei\ ‘No.’
“ Sixth. Did not the plaintiff know, or, if he had reflected, would he not have known, that it was unsafe to remove the roller without assistance, while standing inside the frame, and in such a position that he could not see the*691 end of the roller next to the shifter, or the shifter itself, by-pushing the roller through the frame towards the shifter, and then withdrawing it towards himself ?
“Answer. ‘No.’
“ Seventh. What, if anything, was there that prevented ■the plaintiff from having assistance in removing the roller ?
“Answer. ‘Nothing.’
“ Eighth. What, if anything, was there that prevented the plaintiff from tying back the shifter or fastening it back with a stick, or from removing the belt from the pulleys at the counter-shaft, before he attempted to remove "the roller ?
“Answer. ‘None.’
“ Ninth. Had not the plaintiff, before he received the injury in question, worked for defendants for over two j-ears and four months, and became familiar with the printing press in question, and the danger of working inside or under it, unless the belt was removed from the pulleys at the counter-shaft, or the shifter was tied or otherwise fast-•ened back ?
“Answer. ‘No.’”
The appellee contends that this court may look to'the interrogatories and answers to assist it in determining whether or not the verdict is supported by sufficient evidence. The main purpose of interrogatories, and the answers thereto, is to test the correctness of the general verdict. It is also true that the special findings may sometimes be looked to for other purposes. Cleveland, etc., R. R. Co. v. Newell, 104 Ind. 264. The general verdict covers all the issues in the case; and if the special findings harmonize with the general verdict, they may be taken as corroborative, for they then indicate that the jurors have considered.special facts in arriving at their verdict. But the general verdict yields to the special findings only when there is such a conflict between them that they can not be reconciled upon any reasonable hypothesis. Evansville,
Whether or not this court has the right to disturb the judgment of the lower court, for want of evidence to support the verdict, depends upon several contingencies. Where there is a conflict in the evidence, this court will not weigh it,, but must accept the verdict and judgment of the lower court as conclusive. However, when all the material facts are conceded, or are undisputed, and -only one inference can be legitimately drawn from them, this court has the same right to draw the inference as has the-jury or the trial court. The issue here is negligence, and negligence is usually a mixed question of law and fact. An act under certain circumstances may constitute negligence, and the same act, under other circumstances, may not constitute negligence at all. Care and want of care depend upon the circumstances. If only one inference can be legitimately drawn from the circumstances, and that inference indicates a want of proper care, then negligence may be ruled as a matter of law. If the inference indicate proper care, then no negligence may be ruled as a matter of law. Under such circumstances it is the duty .of the court, either to direct a verdict, or wrest the case from the jury, and pronounce judgment upon the facts. If, however, both inferences may be reasonably drawn
If, from the conceded or undisputed facts of this case, negligence, and the absence of contributory negligence, may be reasonably and fairly inferred, then this court has no right to invade the province of the jury and weigh the evidence. The verdict will not be disturbed except in very clear cases. Kentucky, etc., Bridge Co. v. Quinkert, 2 Ind. App. 244; Eichel v. Senhenn, 2 Ind. App. 208.
The same is true with -reference to the nonexistence of contributory negligence. In actions of 'tort, whether or not a certain act constitutes negligence, depends upon the duties imposed by law. This leads to the inquiry as to the respective rights and duties of the appellants and appellee. It is the duty of the employer to furnish his employe with reasonably safe machinery, tools, appliances, and place to work, and exercise reasonable supervision and care
There are also certain duties resting upon tlie employe. He is not required to search for hidden or undisclosed perils, but he must take notice of such as are open and obvious to his senses; and ho is bound to use the machinery and appliances with prudence, and exercise that degree of care commensurate with the known dangers involved. Griffin v. Ohio, etc., R. W. Co., 124 Ind. 326; Vincennes, etc., Co. v. White, 124 Ind. 376; Jenney, etc., Co. v. Murphy, 115 Ind. 566; Lake Shore, etc., R.W. Co. v. McCormick, 74 Ind. 440; Umback v. Lake Shore, etc., R. W. Co., 88 Ind. 191.
These rules apply in all cases where the master and servant are upon an equal footing.
The charge made by the complaint is not that the machine itself was dangerous, or the removal of the iron roller a specially hazardous undertaking, but the peril averred is in attempting to remove the roller by getting within the frame while the belt was revolving on the loose pulley, in close proximity to the tight pulley, that communicated power to and set the machinery in motion. This peril, it is charged, the appellee was incapable of un
In Pennsylvania Co. v. O’Shaughnessy, 122 Ind. 588, it was held, that an employe who does what he is ordered to do by the master or those placed over him, is protected to a reasonable extent by the order while engaged in performing the special duty enjoined upon him, but that it is incumbent upon him, whether acting under the orders or not, while engaged in the line of his duty, to use ordinary care to avoid injury; that where there are two ways open to him to do a certain thing, one of which is entirely safe and the other perilous, and he voluntarily adopts the dangerous method, knowing the danger to which he exposes himself, and using no precaution to avert it, he is guilty
We accord to the appellee the full force of the rule that where negligence is a matter of inference for the jury to draw, that this court has no right to interfere with the verdict, but the conceded facts of this case fail to show that he did not understand and appreciate the perils involved. If he appreciated the danger, he must have had sufficient judgment to avoid it by the exercise of due care. Upon both principle and authority, it is clear that in respect to all matters wherein a young and inexperienced employe is competent to understand and avoid the dangers, such employe stands upon the same footing with an experienced adult.
Counsel for appellants, in their able and exhaustive brief, have cited many authorities bearing upon this question. We call attention to a few that seem most pertinent.
In Costello v. Judson (N. Y.), 21 ITun, 396, a boy fourteen years of age was employed to carry water in the building whore a number of persons were employed. While ascending in the elevator he projected his foot beyond the elevator floor so that it was caught upon the arch of one of the doors opening into the elevator, and so injured that amputation was necessary. The court affirmed a judgment for the defendant, saying:
“The danger of injury which would obviously result from allowing one of his feet to project beyond the platform of the elevator in its ascension would, we think, be obvious to a youth of the age of fourteen, of ordinary capacity, which it appears the plaintiff was proved to be of.*697 And it can not be that it is the duty of the master to give his employe any express and particular instruction to guard against such dangers as are evidently obvious.”
In Probert v. Phipps (Mass.), 21 N. E. Rep. 370, a boy of fifteen had worked in a silk mill about three weeks. In starting and stopping the machines about which he was employed, he had to go into a^somewhat narrow space between them and throw a belt on or off a wheel. In doing so, he was caught by a part of the gearing, which projected and was rapidly revolving, and he was injured. He had no knowledge of machinery before entering this employment. He had also been warned by fellow'-employes against getting caught in the gearing, but the court puts its decision upon the ground that the danger was obvious, and held the defendant not liable, saying:
“We think that it appears, from the testimony of the plaintiff himself, that the danger of getting caught in the gearing was obvious, and that he well understood what this danger was, and how it was to be avoided, and that it was from his own want of care that he was injured.”
In the case at bar the appellee testified that he knew that if the machine was started Avhile he was in the frame, that there was danger of being caught.
In Buckley v. Gutta Percha, etc., Mfg. Co., 113 N. Y. 540, a boy about twelve years of age Avas employed to assist in operating a machine in a factory. He had been thus engaged about three days when, in attempting to put a cylinder in place, his foot slipped and he threw out his hand to save himself from falling, and thrust it into the cogs of some revolving wheels, about nine inches from the end of the cylinder, and the hand was crushed. The court said :
“It is idle to say that this plaintiff did not know as well as a grown man that if-he placed his fingers between the revolving cogs he would be injured. * * * It is impossible to perceive how the absence of instructions had anything to do with this injury. He had been sufficiently
Many other cases might be cited to the same effect. In reaching this conclusion, we do not overlook the rule that the master is liable for an injury resulting, if he employ •one 'of immature judgment, and, without instruction, set him to perform service the peril of which, on account of
"We do not think the facts of this case bring it within that rule. Even if it be a matter of doubt as to whether-the appellants were guilty of negligence, we think, upon the conceded facts and admissions of appellee, that contributory negligence may be ruled as a matter of law.
Judgment reversed, with instruction to grant a new trial.