May 25, 1919 



HARDWOOD RECORD 



35 



Pertinent Legal Findings 



Injury to Logging Employee 

 Where plaintiff, an employee of defendant company, was in- 

 jured in the nighttime on a hillside through being unable to get 

 out of the way of a log after he had dislodged it from a stump 

 against which it had caught, having miscalculated the effect of 

 his disloging it, he cannot recover on the theory that the employer 

 failed to properly light the place, it appearing that there was 

 enough light for him to see the situation of the log and that the 

 presence of more light would not have altered the peril to which 

 he exposed himself. Nor could recovery be sustained on the theory 

 of failure to provide plaintiff with an assistant, it not appearing 

 that the task he undertook was too great for one man. Plaintiff 

 assumed the risk of injury through miscalculation of the movement 

 of the log. (Kentucky court of appeal, Cisco vs. D. E. Hewitt Lum- 

 ber Company, 205 Southwestern Reporter, 677.) 



Injury by Unguarded Set Screw 



In upholding recovery by a boy seventeen years old for injury 

 sustained by him while at work in defendant's woodworking estab- 

 lishment, on account of his clothing being caught by an unguarded 

 set screw while he was placing a belt on a pulley of a countershaft, 

 the Delaware Superior Court laid down the following rules of law 

 applicable to an employer's liability for injuries suffered by his 

 workers (Kemp vs. McNeill Cooperage Company, 104 Atlantic Re- 

 porter, 639) : 



There can be no recovery for Injury to an employee in the course of his 

 employment If the accident can be traced to his own failure to use a 

 proper degree of care for his own safety, although the employer may 

 have been guilty of negligence in permitting n dangerous condition to 

 exl8t. 



And where an employee voluntarily undertakes to do some act out- 

 side the scope of his employment, without direction from his employer 

 or superior, there can be no recovery for resulting Injury although the 

 same nmy be traced to the maintenance of dangerous and defective ap- 

 pliances or machinery by the employer. 



Hut it Is the duty of an employer to warn a workman of any danger 

 with which the latter is apt to come in contact in the course of his 

 employment, except as that danger is known to the employee or Is dis- 

 coverable by him by exercising due care for his own safety. 



Lumber Dryer's Responsibility 



In an action to recover damages for the destruction of lumber 

 delivered to the defendants for the purpose of drying, it appeared 

 that when the lumber was shipped plaintiff wrote to defendants 

 telling them that they were "to use every care in properly drying 

 this material, and prevent all checking or honeycombing. As we 

 understand it you are to take all responsibility of properly drying 

 this birch, and will be responsible if this material is ruined in any 

 way." To this letter defendants replied on the following day: 

 "We expect to use every precaution in properly drying the birch, 

 * • * but we do not understand that we are to take all of the 

 responsibility in the properly drying of same, and will not be 

 responsible if any of it does check or honeycomb, otherwise we will 

 shut it right off and be done with it." Held that the letter of 

 defendants did not relieve them from their obligation to dry the 

 lumber in a good and workmanlike manner, and if the injuries 

 shown resulted from the defendants' failure so to do, the plaintiff 

 was entitled to recover. (Schwartz Wheel Co. vs. Wilt, 68 Penn- 

 sylvania Superior Court Records, 460.) 



Damages for Breach of Contract 



The case of Twin City Lumber Co. vs. Daniels, 96 Southern 

 Reporter, 437, recently before the Georgia court of appeals called 

 for application of the legal principle that one who breaks a con- 

 tract to sell goods is not liable for consequences not contemplated 

 by him when the contract was entered into. The specific holding 

 in this case was that one who breaks a contract to manufacture 

 and deliver lumber is not liable for special damage sustained by the 

 contract buyer, through inability to fulfill a particular contract 



of resale, unless the seller knew when the agreement was 

 entered into that the lumber was intended for specific resale. 



The contract in this case involved manufacture of 480,000 feet 

 of lumber to be delivered in monthly installments of 100,000 feet 

 or more, and an additional sale of 60,000 feet to be delivered in 

 three lots. Plaintiff sued to recover damages for breach of the 

 agreement on defendant's part, but was nonsuited on the ground 

 that the claim was based on damages asserted to have been sus- 

 tained by plaintiff through inability to fill a particular contract 

 of resale without increased expense in obtaining substitute lumber 

 elsewhere. The court recognizes that failure to fulfill a contract 

 of sale will sustain recovery of general damages, when properly 

 claimed, but holds that in this particular case the suit must fail 

 because it was based solely on special damages not contemplated 

 when the contract was entered into. The following rules are laid 

 down in the opinion: 



If one contracts to deliver personal property at a particular time 

 and place, and fails to do so, the aggrieved buyer may recover the 

 excess of the market value of the property at such time and place 

 above the agreed price. If delivery was to be made in install- 

 ments, the damages are to be assessed as of the several times agreed 

 upon for delivery. If there is no market at the place of delivery, 

 the market value of the property is to be ascertained with regard 

 to the nearest market plus freight charges to the contract place for 

 delivery. 



Correct Moisture Content of Lumber 



Shrinking and swelling of wood, as well as warping and twisting, 

 are caused by changes in moisture content. Such changes always 

 take place when the wood is not in equilibrium with the surround- 

 ing atmosphere. This state of equilibrium depends mainly upon 

 the humidity of the air and to some extent uijon its temperature. 

 Knowing the average temperature and humidity of any given 

 region, as given by the Weather Bureau records, it is possible to 

 determine the moisture content of wood corresponding to these 

 conditions. Wood dried to this moisture content will undergo the 

 least possible amount of working in that particular region. 



The following table, compiled from data secured by the Forest 

 Products Laboratory of the TJ. S. Forest Service at Madison, Wis., 

 shows the moisture content in wood corresponding to various tem- 

 peratures and humidities: 



When relative The moisture content of "dry" wood is 



humidity of At temperature At temperature At temperature 



air is ot70°F. of 140° F. of 212° F. 



Percent. Percent. Percent. Percent. 



20 4.5 3.3 2.2 



30 G.O 4.5 2.9 



40 7.7 5.9 3.9 



50 9.3 7.1 4.9 



60 11.2 8.8 6.2 



70 13.5 10.7 8.0 



80 17.0 14.0 10.5 



90 22.2 18.2 14.0 



100 32.0 26.2 21.0 



All wooden products in which swelling, shrinking, warping, 

 checking, and opening of glue joints are troublesome should be 

 manufactured at the moisture content and under atmospheric con- 

 ditions corresponding to the average for the region in which fhey 

 are to be used. 



Perhaps the softest wood of the United States is wicopy or moose- 

 wood {Dirce palustris). It is a shrub rather than a tree, and 

 seldom exceeds a height of ten feet and a diameter of two inches. 

 One slash of a pocket knife suffices to sever the largest stem. The 

 bark is very tough, pliant, and strong and may be peeled at any 

 season. Among the Alleghany mountains, teamsters sometimes 

 braid the bark and make "blacksnake" whips, leaving a portion 

 of the stem attached to serve as a handle. 



