Carlin v. Kennedy

• Decision Date: 19 January 1906
• Citation: 97 Minn. 141,106 N.W. 340
• Parties: CARLIN v. KENNEDY.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

97 Minn. 141

106 N.W. 340

CARLIN

v.KENNEDY.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Jan. 19, 1906.

Appeal from District Court, Ramsey County; Grier M. Orr, Judge.

Action by Kathryn Carlin against Charles D. Kennedy. Verdict for plaintiff for $7,500. From an order denying new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

The evidence was sufficient to justify the jury in finding that the ironing mangle involved in this action was defective, in that it did not have a suitable guard over the rollers to protect employés while engaged in putting a covering upon the rollers, and that the employer was negligent in directing an inexperienced employé to assist in putting a covering on the rollers, without giving her suitable instructions and warning her as to the danger connected therewith.

The evidence was sufficient to justify the jury in finding that respondent did not assume the risks and was not guilty of contributory negligence in performing the work.

Expert testimony was proper with reference to the proper and customary way of putting coverings upon such rollers, and as to whether such machines could reasonable be equipped with a proper guard to protect employés.

Damages, as found by the jury, were not excessive. J. C. Mangan and Davis, Kellogg & Severance, for appellant.

S. A. Anderson, for respondent.

LEWIS, J.

While working on an ironing mangle in appellant's laundry, respondent severely injured her hand, and having recovered a verdict in the court below, the case is presented here by appellant upon the following propositions: (1) That as a matter of law appellant was not guilty of negligence either in the character of the machine furnished, or in failing to properly instruct respondent. (2) That it conclusively appears from the evidence that respondent assumed the risks incident to her work on the mangle. (3) That it conclusively appears from the evidence that she was guilty of contributory negligence. (4) That the court committed error in receiving the testimony of certain expert witneses. (5) That the damages awarded were excessive.

This particular make of machine was not manufactured with any guard in front of the rollers on the delivery side, but had a guard in front of the rollers at the feeding side. The machine was of the usual pattern, consisting of the large heated steam roller, 18 inches in diameter, against which rolled three smaller steel rollers, 6 inches in diameter, not heated, and located at stated intervals on the upper side of the large heated roller. The whole machine was operated by steam and was started and stopped by means of pedals located on the front and rear sides, near the floor, where the operator might readily reach the same while at work. The lowest of the small rollers on the delivery side, where the accident occurred, was 3 feet and 6 inches from the floor. Between this roller and the next small one above it, was a space of 6 1/2 inches, where the large heated roller was exposed to view. Upon the same side was a folding board, 2 feet and 8 inches from the floor, 19 3/4 inches in width, and running the full length of the rollers, 76 inches.

Respondent was 22 years of age, and had never had any experience in a laundry, or with mangles, until she entered appellant's employ, seven days prior to the accident, having been theretofore employed at general housework. On the first day of her service with appellant, she was put to work on the feeding side of the machine, and for about an hour each day she folded clothes on the folding board at the delivery side. While at work at the feeding side she was engaged in feeding clothes into the machine by passing them under a brass rod, so located that her hands did not come near the rollers, although the direction which the clothes took and the purpose of the rollers and their method of coming in contact with the large heated roller, was obvious upon the most casual observation. While at the rear of the machine respondent had nothing to do except to fold the clothes, but the fact that the small rollers were revolving against the heated roller was equally obvious. At the time of the accident, appellant directed respondent to assist another employé, Delia Lynch, in putting a fresh muslin covering on the lower roller on the delivery side. She was given no special instructions how to do the same, nor did she receive any warning of the danger attending such work. The felt covering on the roller was pulled up at the point where it met, and the edge of the sheet, or muslin covering, inserted, so that it would be caught when the roller turned. This was done by Delia Lynch, an experienced laundress, standing at the right end of the machine, while respondent took her position at the left end. When the muslin had been so inserted and stretched out between respondent and Delia, the machine was started by the latter placing her foot on the pedal, and the muslin was rapidly rolled around the roller, passing through the hands of the two girls who were attempting to stretch and hold it in such manner that it would wind evenly around the roller. Respondent's account of the manner in which the accident happened, in answer to her counsel's questioning, is that neither appellant nor her fellow servant, Delia, gave her any directions as to the manner of doing this work, and that she attempted to hold the cloth as she saw Delia hold it; that she allowed the cloth to slip through her fingers with her left hand on the edge, at right angles with the machine, and her right hand toward the center of the cloth, at the side, so as to hold it straight and keep it from wrinkling; that Delia was pulling the cloth towards her end of the machine, and she did the same, and, as...