Sterling Paper Co. v. Hamel

Citations

• 207 F. 300
• 125 C.C.A. 44
• 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1628

Syllabus

<p>1. Master and Servant (§ 121*)—Master’s Liability for Injury to Servant—Dangerous Machinery—Violation of Statutory Requirements— “Take Ordinary Care and Make such Suitable Provisions.”</p> <p>Act Ohio March 20, 1900 (94 Ohio Laws, p. 42; Bates’ Ann. St. § 4364— 89e), which requires factory owners to “ ‘take ordinary care and make such suitable provisions’ as to prevent injury to persons who may come in contact with any such machinery or any part thereof,” and in terms provides that such ordinary care and such suitable provisions -shall include the boxing of all shafting when operating horizontally near floors, and the covering, cutting off, or countersinking of set-screws, imposes a nondelegable duty, and its violation constitutes negligence per se.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.-—For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 228-231; Dec. Dig. § 121.*]</p> <p>2. Master- and Servant (§ 121*)—Master’s Liability for Injury to Servant—Dangerous Machinery—Negligent Failure to Protect.</p> <p>The failure of a paper company to cover a projecting set-screw, on a revolving shaft near the floor in its mill, in the most direct way between the place where an employé worked and a steam valve necessary to be operated in regulating the supply of steam to his machine, held a violation of such statute, which constituted negligence as matter of law.</p> <p>FEd. Note.—For other eases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 228-231; Dec. Dig. § 121.*.]</p> <p>3. Master and Servant (§ 297*)—Action for Injury to Servant—Assumption of Risk.</p> <p>Where the question whether an employé knew of the existence of a setscrew hy which he was injured was submitted to the jury, a verdict in his favor is conclusive that he did not have such knowledge and voluntarily assume the risk.</p> <p>I Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 1195-1198; Dec. Dig. § 297.*</p> <p>Assumption of risk incident to employment, see note to Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. Hennessey, 38 C. C. A. 314.]