95 Mich. 250 | Mich. | 1893
Defendants were manufacturers of heaters and gas machines. In their factory was a carpenter’s shopj which contained two small circular saws, run by machinery, and other tools and machines. In this shop they made parts of the gas machines, and crates used for shipping them. Plaintiff was about 50 years of age, and in the full possession of his faculties. He was employed by defendants as a general laborer at $1.50 per day. At the time of the accident he had been’ in their employ a year and a half. The circular saws projected a few inches above an
The declaration contained three counts. The first two are based upon the theory that the defendants negligently put the plaintiff at dangerous work, against his protest, and outside the scope of his employment. The third count contained the additional allegation that—
“The buzz-saw was not a suitable or proper saw upon , which to saw or cut short boards, and it was dangerous to cut or saw short boards thereon, all of which said defend*253 ants well knew, and all of which the plaintiff did not knoAv.”
At the conclusion of the plaintiff’s case the court directed a verdict for the defendants.
Plaintiff’s counsel now insist upon three grounds of negligence, which they claim should have been submitted to the jury, viz.:
1. Ordering the plaintiff to do. the work in question, as it was outside the scope of his employment.-
2. Using a gauge that was improperly constructed and out of repair.
3. Neglecting to explain to the plaintiff the dangers of the saAv and the gauge.
Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Bayfield, 37 Mich. 205, is in no respect applicable to the present case. . Bayfield’s decedent was young, weak, and inexperienced, but the Court based its decision entirely upon his inexperience. He commenced to work in May, and was killed in June. If he had been a man of age, experience, strong in body and mind, had been familiar with the work of braking
In Broderick v. Depot Co., 56 Mich. 261, Broderick was sent for the first time to close a defective damper in a ventilating shaft in a dark place. He was ignorant of its construction, and, in attempting to close the ventilator, was following the instructions of his superior. The inapplicability of that case to 'the present one is apparent.
One of the difficulties with the plaintiff’s case is, it does not appear from the record that the plaintiff’s injury occurred from either of the causes assigned; neither does it appear that any such or like injury ever did occur from the causes claimed.”
See, also, Kean v. Rolling Mills, 66 Mich. 277; Melzer v. Car Co., 76 Id. 94.
Judgment affirmed.