Brothers v. Brown
| Decision Date | 01 November 1897 |
| Docket Number | 244 |
| Citation | 7 Kan.App. 394,51 P. 926 |
| Parties | GREEF BROTHERS v. STELLA BROWN |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Opinion Filed January 18, 1898.
Error from Crawford district court; J. S. WEST, judge. Reversed.
Judgment reversed.
Morris Cliggitt, for plaintiffs in error.
Fuller & Randolph, for defendant in error.
This was an action brought by the defendant in error, Stella Brown, in the district court of Crawford county, to recover for personal injury sustained by her while working for the plaintiffs in error at a mangle in a laundry. The petition charges negligence, both generally and specifically. The answer is general denial and contributory negligence. The verdict and judgment were in favor of defendant in error for $ 600. A motion for a new trial was overruled. These proceedings in error are brought by defendants below.
The undisputed facts are substantially as follows: Plaintiffs in error, at the time of the injury and for several months prior thereto, owned and operated a steam laundry at Pittsburg Kan. Mrs. Jennie Rush and Mr. E. Rush, the mother and stepfather of defendant in error, were both employed at work in the laundry. Mr. E. Rush had had thirteen years' experience in the business and was acquainted with the machinery. During the week preceding the injury, one of the plaintiffs in error and Mrs. Jennie Rush had a talk about plaintiffs in error employing defendant in error to work at the mangle; in which conversation Mrs. Rush stated that she thought defendant in error would be entirely able to work the mangle. They then agreed upon the terms of her employment and that she should go to work with Bertha Garver at the mangle. She came to the laundry that same week, and was there a day or two, but at what she worked is not without dispute. On the following Monday she went to the laundry with her mother and stepfather, and with their knowledge began work at the mangle, continuing at the same during Monday and until between two and three o'clock Tuesday when she received the injury.
At the time of the injury defendant in error was a stout, rugged girl, nearly seventeen years old. The mangle is a machine that was used for drying and ironing bed linens, napkins, table-cloths, etc. It consisted, besides the framework, of four cylinders of equal length -- about four and one-half or five feet -- all parallel and resting horizontally on the frame. One cylinder is much larger than the others, and when the machine was in operation the three small cylinders were pressed close to it.
The large cylinder was heated by steam and the three smaller ones revolved so as to draw in the clothing. The mangle was, in all respects, in the same condition from the time the Rushes began work in the laundry to the time of the injury. A guard board, designed by the manufacturer of the machine to protect operators, was in the building, but had not been used. Of this guard board and its use defendant in error was wholly ignorant. There was a lever at one end of the mangle to be used in applying the pressure of the cylinders. Defendant in error was at this mangle, and, using her own language: "I was putting napkins through and I pushed the napkins closer and closer and it caught my fingers." Her hand was caught and held between the cylinders and burned. E. Rush went to her aid, reversed the lever and threw off the pressure, and then went to the other side of the mangle to throw off the belt. Meantime one of the plaintiffs in error went to the mangle, attracted there by the girl's outcry, and seeing her hand still between the cylinders, and believing that the pressure was still on, and desiring to release her hand and prevent further injury, by mistake turned the lever in such a way as to bring the cylinders closer together; but immediately seeing the mistake, turned the lever the other way and released the pressure. The girl's hand was then released by bystanders. The hand was so burned and bruised as to render it useless.
The first error assigned is the overruling of the demurrer of plaintiffs in error to the evidence, and as our conclusion upon this question is decisive of the case the other matters complained of are not considered. Negligence is the want of the exercise of that degree of care which ordinarily prudent persons are accustomed to exercise under the like or similar circumstances. Taking this as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hunter v. Colfax Consol. Coal Co.
...of law-writers, and the reports, are full of positive declarations that the two are practically interchangeable. In Greef Bros. v. Brown, 7 Kan. App. 394, 51 Pac. 926, assumption of risks is spoken of as being “a species of contributory negligence.” A long line of decisions in Wisconsin, co......
-
Simmons v. Porter
...the risks, voluntarily continues in the employment). Kansas courts discussed assumption of risk as early as 1898. See Greef Bros. v. Brown, 7 Kan.App. 394, 51 P. 926 (1898). But in those early cases it was viewed as a “species of contributory negligence.” Greef Bros., 7 Kan.App. at 398, 51 ......
-
Hunter v. Colfax Consolidated Coal Co.
... ... reports, are full of positive declarations that the two are ... practically interchangeable ... In ... Greef Bros. v. Brown (Kans.), 7 Kan.App. 394, 51 P ... 926, assumption [175 Iowa 263] of risks is spoken of as being ... "a species of contributory negligence." A ... ...
-
Selhaver v. Dover Lumber Co.
...a guard, there is no duty on the part of the master to supply one. (Lohmeyer v. St. Louis Cordage Co., 214 Mo. 685, 113 S.W. 1108; Greef v. Brown, supra; Guedelhofer v. Ernsting, 23 Ind.App. 188, 55 113; O'Connor v. Whittall, 169 Mass. 563, 48 N.E. 844; Wiley v. Batchelder, 105 Me. 536, 75 ......