Machinery; safety devices required.
Every person operating a plant where machinery is used, shall provide such guards, boxing, screens or other appliances as will protect employees against injury from belting, shafting, gearing, elevators, drums, saws, cogs, electric currents, molten metal or hot liquid. He shall also furnish and supply belt shifters which can be operated from the floor. All exposed cogs or gears shall be enclosed in metal casings or woven wire screens. Protruding set screws in collars and couplings of shafting or other revolving machinery shall be countersunk or covered with metal boxing. Pulleys, belts and projections of or from ends of shaftings shall be protected by boxing or enclosing with metal or other suitable material. Belts shall not rest on shafting in motion, but rest hooks shall be provided to hold belting free therefrom. Roll guards shall be placed on roll-feed machines fed by hand at the point where the material is fed, and a device for instantly stopping the machine by the hand or foot shall also be provided within reach of the operator when operating the machine.
Source:Laws 1911, c. 67, § 9, p. 302; Laws 1913, c. 103, § 1, p. 260; R.S.1913, § 3597; Laws 1919, c. 190, tit. IV, art. IV, § 9, p. 560; C.S.1922, § 7690; C.S.1929, § 48-409; R.S.1943, § 48-409.
Employee's acceptance of benefits under Workmen's Compensation Act ordinarily constitutes release to employer of claims at law arising from the injury. Edelman v. Ralph Printing & Lithographing, Inc., 189 Neb. 763, 205 N.W.2d 340 (1973).
Evidence did not establish violation of this section. Goodwin v. Epsen Lithographing Co., 183 Neb. 281, 160 N.W.2d 183 (1968).
Words "operating a plant" would include corporation carrying on an elevator business. Fosler v. Aden, 175 Neb. 535, 122 N.W.2d 494 (1963).
Applicability of section is limited to operator of plant. Quist v. Duda, 159 Neb. 393, 67 N.W.2d 481 (1954).
A farming and stockfeeding business is not a plant within this section. Groat v. Clausen, 139 Neb. 689, 298 N.W. 563 (1941).
Factory act is not intended to narrow compensation act. Fact that employer's violation of this section was cause of injury to employee does not entitle latter to sue at common law. Navracel v. Cudahy Packing Co., 109 Neb. 506, 191 N.W. 659 (1922), reh'g denied, 109 Neb. 512, 193 N.W. 768 (1923).
Where defendant failed to provide rest hook to hold belting free from shafting, it was proper to submit to jury failure to comply with statute as evidence of negligence. Hellerich v. Central Granaries Co., 104 Neb. 818, 178 N.W. 919 (1920).
Violation of this section constituted gross negligence. McCarthy v. Village of Ravenna, 99 Neb. 674, 157 N.W. 629 (1916).