Ingerman

This is an action for damages for personal injuries brought by an employee against his employers. The defendants moved for a nonsuit, which was denied. There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $12,500, a motion for a new trial, which was denied, and the defendants appeal. The facts are stated in the appellants’ brief as follows: “In the month of January, 1884, the defendants were the owners of a sawmill at Port Discovery, Washington Territory, and the plaintiff was one of their employees, engaged in their sawmill in running an edger, or scantling machine, which was used for shaping lumber, and cutting it in various widths and thicknesses. The edger was about seven or eight feet in width, and from three to four feet in length, and had arranged upon it, at intervals upon its longest dimension, eight circular saws. These saws were moved by means of an engine, belt, and pulley, and made eight hundred and sixty revolutions a minute. The plaintiff stood in front of this machine, and, with the aid of a helper, who stood a few feet in the rear of him, ran the lumber through this edger to the rear thereof, where it was removed by others from the mill. About six feet to his rear,…

I dissent. There was, in my opinion, sufficient evidence of negligence on the part of defendants to go to the jury, and not sufficient evidence of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff to justify the court in granting a nonsuit on that ground. It is clear that the machine was dangerous to a man unfamiliar with its construction, and ignorant of the proper method of keeping it in order. If the plaintiff had expressly represented himself as competent to run and manage it, or had impliedly done so by seeking the employment, there might have been no duty resting upon the defendants to instruct or warn him as to the dangers involved in its operation. But the plaintiff’s evidence showed that, so far from seeking the employment, or leading the defendants by any express or implied representations to suppose that he was competent to operate the machine, he accepted the employment unwillingly, protesting that he did not understand machinery, and that some one else should be put in charge. When a man is set to work upon a dangerous machine, under such circumstances, I think the employer is guilty of negligence if he fails to give proper instructions as to the method of…