DocketNumber： No. 2659.
Judges： Grissom
Filed Date： 6/25/1948
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 11/14/2024
J. D. Ashby and N. G. Wood operated a bakery in Stephenville and employed William David Luttrell to work there. The bakery was approved by the government as a school for veterans and Luttrell received pay from the United States Government for taking “on the job training” given by the operators of the bakery to said employee. When Luttrell went to the bakery seeking employment, he informed the manager that he had had experience in the navy as a baker. According to the undisputed evidence, the first day Luttrell worked Ashby showed him through the bakery and explained the operation of the machines generally. On the second day he showed him how to clean the “dough brake” machine. This was a large machine through which dough was run to press out the air and obtain the desired thickness. The distance between the rollers was regulated by a lever. The rollers operated in the same manner as an ordinary wringer on a washing machine. The rollers were each 35 inches in circumference and revolved about 100 times per minute. The top roller was protected by a metal guard. It was impossible to so protect the lower roller for the reasons that dough was put in between the rollers from a table in front of it and a guard would have prevented entry of the dough. The top of the table in front of the rollers was 3 feet from the floor, where a person stood while running the dough through the machine-or cleaning the bottom roller to which dough frequently adhered. The table in front of the rollers was 2 feet and 8 inches in diameter. From the nearest edge of the table in front of the rollers to the place where the rollers came close together was a distance of 8 inches. This is the point where a person cleaning the bottom roller was supposed to .hold the scraper with his hands flat on the table. Luttrell was shown by Ashby how to clean the roller. He cleaned it for the benefit of Luttrell by taking a scraper,
“A. I told'them it was a dangerous machine. Everybody knew that that ever saw it.
“Q. You knew that before you ever got your hand in there, didn’t you? A. Yes, sir.
* . * * ⅜ * *
“Q. You can see in the dough mixing machine, and see what would happen if you got your hand in it, can’t you? A. Yes, sir.
“Q. And you could see in this dough brake machine and see what could happen if you got your hand in it too? A. Yes, sir, you would know the danger in it.
⅜ ⅜ ⅜ ⅜ ⅜ ⅜
“Q. If you opened the oven door and stuck your hand in there it would burn you, wouldn’t it? A. Yes, sir.
“Q. This dough brake machine is as plain as the heat in that oven, isn’t it? A. Yes, sir.”
The proper method of cleaning the bottom roller, as demonstrated by Ashby for the benefit of Luttrell, was to hold the scraper flat on- the desk with both hands. The edge of the desk was lower and about 8 inches from the • place where the rollers came close together. So held, if the scraper hit a particularly hard piece of dough, the natural and inevitable effect would be to shove the operator’s hands back and away from the rollers. Plaintiff testified:
“Q. If you had been as careful before you "got hurt in cleaning the machine as you were afterwards you wouldn’t have got hurt, would you? A. No, sir, I don’t believe so, but I didn’t know just exactly the procedure to go through to be careful and to clean the machine.
“Q. You knew how Mr. Ashby told you to hold the scraper, didn’t you? A. He never told me. He picked it up and showed me by holding it.
“Q. He held it like Walker is holding it there, (in the picture) didn’t he? A. Yes, sir, he possibly did, most of the time. When he got out there at the turn table I didn’t pay any particular attention to what he was doing.”
Plaintiff further testified that when he got his left hand caught between the rollers he was not holding the scraper like Walker was in the picture introduced. In other words, he was not holding the scraper as he had been instructed to do. He had his left hand off the table and up in the air. After Luttrell had been in the employ of the bakery for 9 days, had been shown how to clean the roller, and had successfully cleaned the dough brake machine twice, he was cleaning the bottom roller, with his left hand off the table and up in the air when the scraper struck a hard piece of dough on the roller and his left hand went up and forward and between the rollers and was crushed. Thereafter, Luttrell sued the owners of the bakery for damages alleged to have been caused by their negligence. The cause was submitted to a jury and upon its findings that defendants were negligent in permitting an inexperienced employee to clean the dough brake ■machine and in failing to warn plaintiff of the danger that might reasonably be encountered in cleaning that machine, judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, and defendants have appealed.
Defendants were eligible but nonsub-scribers under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Nevertheless, plaintiff could not recover without proof of negligence of defendants which was a proximate cause of his injury. Art. 8306, Sec. 4; Hutton v. Burkett, Tex.Civ.App., 18 S.W.2d 740 (writ ref.) ; Cate v. Orfic Gasoline Prod. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 78 S.W.2d 635 (writ ref.) ; Railway Express Agency v. Bannis
Appellants complain of the overruling of special exceptions to plaintiff’s petition to the effect that although, plaintiff alleged his inexperience and lack of knowledge as to the danger in working with the machine, he did not allege defendants had knowledge thereof or should have had. These exceptions should have been sustained. Walkowski v. Penokee & Gogebic Consolidated Mines, 115 Mich. 629, 73 N.W. 895. 41 L.R.A. 34, 145; Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Ry. Co. v. W. A. Garrett, 73 Tex. 262, 265, 13 S.W. 62, 15 Am.St.Rep. 781; Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Watts, 64 Tex. 568, 571; 35 Am.Jur. 581. However, our conclusion on another point requires rendition of judgment for appellants, the cause having been fully developed and the evidence disclosing that appellee has no cause of action.
As stated, the judgment rests solely upon findings (1) that defendants were guilty of negligence in permitting an inexperienced employee to clean the dough brake machine; and (2) that defendants were negligent in failing to warn plaintiff of the dangers that might be encountered in cleaning said machine. Relative to the first finding, the court in Vernon Cotton Oil Company v. Jones, Tex.Civ.App., 137 S.W. 424, 428 (writ ref.), said:
“There is no rule of law that an inexperienced person may not be employed about dangerous machinery, and the simple fact that a machine is dangerous does not make the employer liable for an injury received upon such machine.”
Plaintiff was over 21 years of age. He was 6 feet tall and weighed 175 pounds. There is nothing in the record to indicate that he did not possess at least average intelligence. The operation of the machine was simple, the rollers were large; plaintiff could not have worked around the machine as he did without observing them, and, according to his own testimony, he had actual knowledge of the danger of getting his hand caught between the rollers. The danger was patent and apparent. When he was hurt he was not cleaning the machine in the manner in which he had been instructed and in effect, admits that if he had, he would not have been hurt. The evidence clearly shows he was injured because he did not hold the scraper or keep his left hand in the position as he was instructed. The danger of the precise injury suffered by the plaintiff being open and apparent and realized by plaintiff, defendants were not guilty of negligence in failing to warn him. The danger was already known to him. A warning could have added nothing to the information he already possessed. Hanel v. Obrigewitsch, 39 N.D. 540, 168 N.W. 45; 3 A.L.R. 1029, 1035; 39 C.J. 499, 502.
In Oest v. Hendershot, 175 Mich. 140, 141 N.W. 557, it was held that an employee injured by having his hand cut in a sausage machine much larger than those in ordinary use and driven by a five horse power drive was not entitled to recover on the theory of noninstruction, where he had taken the machine apart" and cleaned it and had been instructed to push the meat down into the hopper by his hands, keeping his thumbs under the rim of the hopper, and he conceded that he would not have been injured he followed this instruction. See also Neifert v. Metler, 165 Mich. 354, 130 N.W. 630, 632.
In Stamford Oil Mill Company v. Barnes, 103 Tex. 409, 128 S.W. 375, 378, 31 L.R.A.,N.S., 1218, 1222, Ann.Cas. 1913A, 111; a 12 year old boy was injured by dangerous machinery in a cotton mill. The Supreme Court of Texas held that the mill company was not guilty of negligence in failing to warn the child of a danger already known to him. The court said:
“ * * * the omission of the defendant in not instructing and protecting him does not constitute actionable negligence, since he had the knowledge which instruction would have given him, and knew how to avoid this particular danger.”
In Mitchell v. Comanche Cotton Oil Company, 51 Tex.Civ.App. 506, 113 S.W. 158 (writ ref.), an employee was injured while operating a sewing machine in connection with machinery used for pressing cotton seed. His injury was caused by coming in contact with unguarded belts and pulleys.
We conclude the court erred in overruling defendants’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
The judgment is reversed and judgment rendered for defendants.