Rank v. Kansas City Packing Box Co.

Citations

• 92 Kan. 917
• 142 P. 942
• 1914 Kan. LEXIS 342

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Factory Act — Safeguarding Machinery — Belt-shifters — Loose Pulleys. The provision of the factory act that belt-shifters shall be furnished in manufacturing establishments in which machinery is used, and that machines shall be operated with loóse pulleys when practicable (Gen. Stat. 1909, §4679), is not restricted in its application to safeguarding workmen only when in the act of throwing belts off or on, but -was intended to protect operators of machines in the conduct of their work as well.</p> <p>2. Same — Safety Appliances — Required by Act — Substitutes Not Accepted. Where a particular safety appliance required by the factory act has not been provided, substitutes are not to be accepted, and it is immaterial that a safe and convenient method of operating the machine without the appliance was available.</p> <p>3. Pleading — Interpretation of Petition Charging Failure to Instruct or Warn. Under allegations of a petition charging negligence in failing to instruct or warn the operator of a ripsaw as to the danger in removing slivers when the saw was in motion, and in failing to warn or instruct the operator how the saw could be stopped when obstructed by a sliver, both parties produced evidence as if the petition presented the broad subject of instruction and warning concerning the operation of the saw, including the removal of slivers. Held, the court was authorized to instruct the jury on that theory; and held further, the petition was correctly interpreted.</p> <p>4. Master and Servant — Servant Not Chargeable with Assumption of Risk. Where the operator of a saw did not appreciate the risk involved in dealing with a matter incident to its operation, his nonappreciation was excusable, and the duty of his employer to instruct and warn him had not been performed, he did not assume the risk involved in operating the saw.</p>