Blevins v. Erwin Cotton Mills Co.

• Decision Date: 21 April 1909
• Citation: 64 S.E. 428,150 N.C. 493
• Parties: BLEVINS v. ERWIN COTTON MILLS CO.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

64 S.E. 428

150 N.C. 493

BLEVINS v. ERWIN COTTON MILLS CO.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

April 21, 1909

Appeal from Superior Court, Durham County; E. B. Jones, Judge.

Action by Rufus Blevins, by Columbus Blevins, next friend, against the Erwin Cotton Mills Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

An instruction in an action for injury claimed to have been caused by a defective catch used to fasten a door in a revolving cylinder was not erroneous for ignoring evidence tending to show absence of another device which was not, nor was not used as, a safety device.

Plaintiff objected to a juror because an employé of defendant company. Objection overruled, and plaintiff excepted. The juror was then challenged peremptorily. The challenge was allowed. The negligence alleged against the defendant, as indicated in the complaint, was that the door of one of the machines where the plaintiff was required to work, and at which he was injured "was defective, and had been for many weeks, in that the catch on said door was very weak, so that the door was liable to fly open, and that defendant well knew, or ought to have known, the dangerous condition of the cylinder when said door was open, and well knew, or ought to have known, the dangerous condition of the fastenings on said door, and that said machine was old and had been used for many years; but defendant negligently and carelessly failed to warn plaintiff of the danger of working thereat, and carelessly and negligently failed to equip said door with proper and suitable fastenings, and that the defective condition of the door was unknown to plaintiff." During the trial the defendant was allowed, over plaintiff's objection, to show by a witness, John Burroughs, and some others, that they had examined the machine a short time before the trial, and the door was all right, and the catch thereon in good order. This in connection with the statement of a witness E. K. Poe manager of defendant, who had testified that the catch and door were in exactly the same condition as they were at the time of the injury: "The same catch there now that was then, same knobs and same latch. No repairs or changes had been made, and nothing done to them since." Plaintiff excepted.

There was evidence on the part of plaintiff tending to show that on or about December 26, 1906, the plaintiff, an employé of defendant company, had his hand caught in a carding machine where he was at work, and crushed and mangled to such an extent that amputation was necessary; that the cards were on a cylinder some six feet in diameter, and which revolved when the machine was in operation 160 to 200 times per minute; that this cylinder was inclosed in a casing, and in front there was a door some 10 inches wide and extending across the frame, forming, when closed, a part of this casing. This door was on hinges and opened downwards, and as it was raised and closed, and when in 2 1/2 or 3 inches of the closing point, it would fall shut of itself, and was held shut by gravity, and also by a latch and catch which held it securely when in place and in good order; that the door was for the purpose of enabling a person to open the same and clean the cylinder, and was kept shut except when the cylinder was being cleaned; that above the door there was in some of the machines a stripping stick which also revolved when the machine was in motion, its service being to catch and hold the waste cotton rejected by the cards, and thrown from the machine through a slight opening by the movement of the cylinder. At the time of the injury plaintiff, in the line of his employment, was engaged in running fronts on cards; i. e., "doffing out the cans, taking down the strippings from over the cylinders, and taking off the waste from over the sticks." Making an excerpt from the plaintiff's own testimony: "While so engaged, was hurt in the cylinder of a carding machine. My hand was cut off at the wrist. Over the cylinder was a steel or iron case. There was a door in the case which fitted over the cylinder. I was taking down the stripping, and went to card off the stripping with my left hand, when the cylinder caught my fingers. The door was open. I did not know it was open. If the door had been closed, my hand would not have gotten in the cylinder, could not see that the door was open, because cotton waste was lying over it. I did not open the door. If the stripping stick had been on, this waste cotton would have rolled around the stripping stick, and not fallen on the face of the machine," etc. That, when he went to work in the evening, the stripping stick was off, and there was a lot of waste cotton lying on the machine, and in brushing this away his hand was caught and mangled by reason of the open door, as stated, and that this cotton piled on the machine prevented him from seeing that the door was open. Will A. Carden, a witness for the plaintiff, testified, among other things: "That in operating these carding machines, when the spring is in position as it ought to be, there is nothing that will knock the door down, but if the spring is weak and up, and the door does not catch, a lump of cotton will knock it down and cause the door to fall open on the machine. When the door is closed, it is a part of the casing that covers the cylinders. If there is no stripping stick over the card, the waste cotton falls down in the casing, and, when it does, it conceals the door."

There was evidence on the part of the defendant that the machine at which plaintiff was injured was a standard machine, and in good order at the time of the injury; that it had been continuously in use since, and that no change or repairs had been made; and that it was in good order now. Several witnesses who examined the machine testified to its being in excellent condition. E. K. Powe, manager of defendant testified to the good condition of the machine on the day of the injury, and no notice or complaint had ever been made concerning it. R. P. Kirley, overseer of the card department, testified as to the good condition of the machine; that he was continuously in the room and passed the machine frequently during the day; that its condition was all right and no defect in it, and no notice or complaint had ever been made by any one. This witness further testified that it was no part of defendant's duty to strip this machine, and nothing in the line of his work that called him to go nearer than two feet of it; the work plaintiff was engaged in at the time being the work of one S. C. Howell, a co-employé. There was further evidence on part of the defendant that the stripping stick was there more for gathering the waste cotton and putting it in a more compact form; and both plaintiff's and defendant's witnesses testified...