Brower v. Locke, By Next Friend
| Decision Date | 26 June 1903 |
| Docket Number | 3,994 |
| Parties | BROWER ET AL. v. LOCKE, BY NEXT FRIEND |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
From the Superior Court of Marion County; J. M. Leathers, Judge.
Action by Harry Locke, by his next friend, against Abram G. Brower and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
W. H H. Miller, J. B. Elam, J. W. Fesler and S.D. Miller, for appellants.
J. B Kealing and M. M. Hugg, for appellee.
Action by appellee against appellants for damages for personal injuries received by appellee while in the employ of appellants. The complaint is in three paragraphs.
The material allegations of the first paragraph are: That the plaintiff was, on the 12th day of July, 1900, the date of his alleged injury, an infant under the age of sixteen years, to wit, fourteen years of age; that the defendants on said date were, and for a long time prior thereto had been, the owners of and engaged in operating a mill, in the city of Indianapolis, for the manufacture of cotton products, and in which they operated a large number of carding machines; that on each of said machines were two cylinders revolving with great force and speed, and around said cylinders were set and arranged a large number of wire teeth, composed of iron or steel, being set and arranged as a brush, and bent at an angle; that said machines had a guard or cover over and in front of said cylinders, which was fastened and held in place by a catch to the side and towards the top of said machines, and were so arranged upon hinges that said guard or cover could be let down, leaving said cylinder exposed; that when any of said machines were run with said guard or cover down, it was highly dangerous to operate; that in carding said cotton the dust, dirt, and extraneous matter in said cotton would accumulate on said guards or covers, and other parts of said machines, requiring them to be frequently cleaned; that on the afternoon of July 9, 1900, plaintiff was employed by the defendants to work in their said mill, and was by their agents placed to work upon a number of said carding machines, and a part of his duties as such employe was to clean said machines; that plaintiff was of ordinary intelligence and education for one of his years, but inexperienced in the use and operation of machinery of all kinds, and had no experience in running or operating carding machines or in working about them; that plaintiff was carelessly and negligently instructed by the agents of defendants, who had charge of said machines upon which he was directed to work, to clean said machines, and the guards or covers upon the same, while said machines were in operation, and to do such cleaning with waste cotton and other material furnished him for the purpose; that because of plaintiff's tender age and inexperience he was not capable of understanding or comprehending the danger attending the operation of said machines; that on said 12th day of July, 1900, while plaintiff, pursuant to his instructions as aforesaid, was cleaning one of said carding machines upon which he was directed to work, and while the same was in motion, the guard or cover to which, in some manner unknown to plaintiff, had, without any fault, carelessness, or negligence on his part, become unfastened and open, leaving the cylinders in said machines exposed, his right hand was caught by the wire teeth around the same, and his right hand and arm were drawn into said machine, so injuring his arm as to require amputation at the shoulder, and otherwise injuring him to his damage in the sum of $ 10,000.
The second paragraph, after alleging appellee's age, the operation of carding machines, and his employment by appellants, avers that appellee was inexperienced in the use and operation of machinery of all kinds, and had no experience in running or operating carding machines or working about the same; that appellee was carelessly and negligently instructed by the agents of appellants, who had charge of said machines, to clean said machines upon and about which he was directed to work, and the guards or covers upon the same, while said machinery was in full operation and motion, and to do so with waste cotton or other material furnished him for that purpose; that he was not in any way instructed as to said guard or cover, or the danger attending the use of said machines, with the cylinders exposed; that because of appellee's tender age and inexperience he was not capable of comprehending the danger attending the operation of said machines; that while performing his duties as such employe of appellants, in cleaning one of appellant's carding machines while in motion, pursuant to his directions and instructions, he was injured, by reason of the guard or cover upon said machine becoming unfastened and dropping, in some manner unknown to appellee, without any fault or negligence on his part, leaving the cylinders exposed, by having his right hand and arm caught by the wire teeth around said cylinders, and so injuring him that it was necessary to amputate his arm.
The third paragraph sets out...
To continue reading
Request your trial