GERMAN-AMERICAN LUMBER CO., A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
C. P. HANNAH, BY NEXT FRIEND, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed its judgment against a lumber mill worker who was injured by a projecting set screw on a revolving shaft, holding that the worker's contributory negligence barred recovery despite potential negligence by the mill owner in maintaining the dangerous condition.
The court held that the plaintiff's contributory negligence barred recovery. Even if the mill owner was negligent in permitting the set screw to project, the owner had no duty to warn the plaintiff of a danger he was not required to encounter, and the plaintiff's experience and observation should have made him aware of and appreciate the risks in the area.
“Even if there was negligence in permitting the set screw to project 5/16 of an inch from the safety collar on the revolving shaft, the defendant was under no duty to warn the plaintiff of it when he was not required or expected to go near it.”
Establishes that the employer's duty to warn does not extend to dangers in areas the employee is not required to frequent.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff, C. P. Hannah, was injured at a lumber mill operated by German-American Lumber Co. when his clothing caught on a projecting set screw (5…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Ordinary Care cases and more on FLexlaw
On Rehearing
Per Curiam.
A petition for rehearing suggests that the court failed to consider testimony that there was no way designed for a walkway which the plaintiff could have used, that the route taken was the quickest and plainest but not the safest, that the plaintiff did not know of the projecting set screw, that the collar on the revolving shaft was designed for a safety screw and not a projecting one, that of the many set screws used in the mill only eight or ten projected, that a projecting screw is more dangerous than one not projecting and that the plaintiff knew of no other way to use.
All the testimony in the transcript was carefully considered. As contributory negligence of the plaintiff • was clearly indicated by.the facts and circumstances in evidence, it was not necessary to state more than the conclusions and the legal effect of the evidence. The plaintiff's age, intelligence, experience and most ordinary observa tion should have made him know and appreciate the risks and dangers of the conditions that surrounded him. Even if there was negligence in permitting the set screw to project 5/16 of an inch from the safety collar on the revolving shaft, the defendant was under no duty to warn the plaintiff of it when he was not required or expected to go near it. The plaintiff’s experience and observation while working “all over the mill” as he testifies, should reasonably have made him assume the risk he took. Whether the plaintiff knew of the projecting set screw or not. he contributed directly to the efficient cause of his own injury by needlessly going where he did without being required to do so, and in allowing his clothing to come within five-sixteenths of an inch of a safety collar on a rapidly revolving shaft.
The main opinion cites and approves the Lassiter case which followed the cases of Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. Mooney, 40 Fla. 17, 24 South. Rep., 148, and 45 Fla. 286, 33 South. Rep. 1010.
The danger of the route taken was obvious, and under the facts and circumstances in evidence the plaintiff reasonably should have known of and appreciated the different ways and the conditions actually existing as he “had worked all over the mill” for several months, and by the exercise of the ordinary care for his own protection that the law requires of him he could readily have anticipated self injury from his action.
A rehearing is denied.
Whitfield, C. J., and Shackleford and Cockrell concur. Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1973)…caused by the negligence of anoth [*443] er if he in any appreciable way contributed to the proximate cause of injury, upon the theory that there is no apportionment of the results of mutual negligence. See also German-American Lumber Co. v. Hannah, 60 Fla. 76, 53 So. 516, 30 L.R.A. (N.S.) 882. In the Shields case, this Court explicitly recited, “The only modification of this common-law principle which the Legislature of this state has seen fit to make is in regard to injuries occasioned by railroad comp…
-
Wilson & Toomer Fertilizer Co. v. Lee, 90 Fla. 632 (Fla. 1924)…ordinarily prudent person is presumed to apprehend it. In using the derrick in these circumstances, therefore, Mr. Lee assumed the risk. See Southern Turpentine Co. v. Douglass, 61 Fla. 424, 54 South. Rep. 385; German-American Lumber Co. v. Hannah, 60 Fla. 76, 53 South. Rep. 516. I also think that the uncontradieted evidence in the ease amply sustained the pleas of assumption of risk as this Court has frequently interpreted that doctrine. There were errors in the giving of certain charges which seemed t…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Cent. & Peninsular R.R. Co. v. Mooney, 40 Fla. 17 (Fla. 1898)
- The Fla. Cent. & Peninsular R.R. Co. v. Mooney, 45 Fla. 286 (Fla. 1903)