delivered the opinion of the court.
Androczycyn v. Spaulding & Merrick, 194 Ill. App. 471 (1915)
Oct. 5, 1915
·
Illinois Appellate Court
·
Glen. No. 19,711
194 Ill. App. 471
Stephen Androczycyn, Plaintiff in Error, v. Spaulding & Merrick, Defendant in Error.
Glen. No. 19,711.
(Not to he reported in full.)
Error to the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Richard S. Tuthill, Judge, presiding.
Heard in this court at the October term, 1913.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed October 5, 1915.
Statement of the Case.
Action "by Stephen Androczycyn, a minor, "by next friend, against Spaulding & Merrick, a corporation, in the Circuit Court of Cook county. The action was for personal injuries received by plaintiff, who was *472employed by defendant, from the revolving knife of a tobacco cutting machine, by which plaintiff’s hand was cut off. The direct cause of the accident was the unexpected movement of the knife blade, and the crucial question concerned the cause of this movement. It appeared that just before the accident plaintiff shifted the belt on his machine from the tight to the loose pulley, and stopped the revolving knife; tightened the shifting device so as to hold the belt on the loose pulley; changed the knife blade, replacing the dull knife with a sharp one. He was then called to assist in putting into service an idle belt on a neighboring machine. At this time the power was off the overhead shaft, which served the various machines through belts. To put the idle belt into commission, this shaft was turned slightly by pulling by hand on the belts. Plaintiff and another workman pulled down on the belt of plaintiff’s machine. Plaintiff then resumed his work of tightening his new knife blade, his machine being still at rest. Almost immediately thereafter, as he says; the knife suddenly commenced to revolve, striking and severing his hand. There was also testimony, including that of the plaintiff, that when the operation of pulling down on the belt ended, it was still wholly on the loose pulley; also that there was attached a mechanical device which would prevent the belt from slipping from one pulley to another, except as operated and controlled by plaintiff. Also evidence as to the character of the revolving knife and arms, with special reference to their size and weight, and the fact that they could be revolved easily from a position of rest by a touch of the hand, without the application of mechanical power.
At the trial the court admitted in evidence certain photographs showing the physical situation. The jury found a verdict for the defendant, and plaintiff brings error.
*473Abstract of the Decision.
1. Master and servant, § 699 * —when evidence shows contributory negligence. Where an accident is caused by the unexpected movement of the revolving knives of a tobacco cutting machine operated by the plaintiff, a servant, evidence held to warrant the jury in finding that the accident was caused by the contributory negligence of the plaintiff, and not by the negligence of the defendant, the master.
2. Evidence, § 277 * —when photographs admissible. Photographs helpful to an understanding of the physical situation at the time when, an accident occurs held admissible, and to have no tendency to mislead the jury, where any differences between the photographs and the exact situation at the time of the accident are pointed out and explained by the witnesses.
3. Appeal and error, § 1530 * —when errors in instructions harmless. Irregularities and informalities in instructions, where there is little controversy about the salient facts of the case, will not have sufficient weight to cause a reversal, though "some of the objections have weight, and under different circumstances might necessitate a reversal.
Vincent G. Gallagher and Ernest Messner, for plaintiff in error.
Frank M. Cox, for defendant in error.