Chambers v. Woodbury Mfg. Co. of Baltimore County

• Decision Date: 21 November 1907
• Citation: 68 A. 290,106 Md. 496
• Parties: CHAMBERS v. WOODBURY MFG. CO. OF BALTIMORE COUNTY et al.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

68 A. 290

106 Md. 496

CHAMBERS v. WOODBURY MFG. CO. OF BALTIMORE COUNTY et al.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

November 21, 1907

Appeal from Superior Court of Baltimore City; Henry Stockbridge Judge.

Action by Lilly M. Chambers against the Woodbury Manufacturing Company of Baltimore County and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and new trial awarded.

Argued before BOYD, SCHMUCKER, PEARCE, BURKE, and ROGERS, JJ.

Charles F. Stein and Thomas G. Hayes, for appellant.

Henry Duffy, for appellees.

ROGERS J.

This is an appeal from the superior court of Baltimore city. The appellant brought her suit in said court for injuries complained of when she was a girl of 11 years of age, and while she was at that time employed in the mill of the appellee. She is now and was at the trial of the case below an adult woman. This suit was brought by the appellant after she became of age, under the provision of Code Pub. Gen Laws, art. 57, § 2. At the trial of this case in the lower court the learned judge, at the conclusion of the appellant's testimony, by an instruction which told the jury that there was no legally sufficient evidence to show that the appellee had "failed in any legal duty owing by the defendant to the plaintiff," directed the jury to render a verdict for the appellee. There are six exceptions. Five of them relate to the admissibility and rejection of testimony, and the sixth relates to the granting of the above-mentioned prayer. The facts are: That the plaintiff in August, 1891, when about 11 years of age, was employed in the appellee's cotton mill, located in Woodbury. Her employment was at first to sweep the floor of the mill. She was afterwards put to "doffing bobbins." This work of "doffing," as explained by the appellant, was "When the frames were run full of cotton around the bobbins, we took the full bobbins off, and put the empty ones on, and the frames started and ran until they were full again, and when we got done with the frames we would go out on this platform." This platform was a kind of bridge connecting the spinning room with the toilet room. The platform was four feet wide and nine feet long, and on one side it overhung the ground, which was about 30 or 40 feet below. The only guard on this exposed side was an insufficient railing made of iron pipes. This railing consisted, in the center of the nine feet of floor, of an unright or vertical pipe, and then two horizontal pipes fastened at their ends to the building and in the center to the upright pipe. The distance from the floor of the platform to the first horizontal pipe was 17 inches, and the same distance between the two horizontal pipes. These "doffer" girls were children of tender years, the appellant being one, and they were five in number. When these children finished their work in the spinning room, where they "doffed the bobbins," the older hands then went to work on the machines, and these five children were required and ordered by the boss or superintendent in charge of the spinning room to go out on this platform and stay there until, by a bell, they were called back in the spinning room to "doff the bobbins." These children, habitually under the orders of the person in charge, spent 15 minutes of each hour on the platform, idle or unemployed and without seats. They often spent this time on the platform in play, and often to rest seated themselves on the floor of the platform, there being no seats provided. There being, as above stated, no seats provided, they seated themselves on the floor of the platform near this exposed edge of this platform. All this was known to the appellee. On the day of the accident the appellant was seated on the floor of the platform, with her back resting against the vertical edge of the platform, when one of the children came from the opposite side of the platform, and in play attempted to slap her, and, in moving her body to avoid the slap, she went over the edge between the first horizontal pipe and the floor to the ground below, and was seriously injured. This distance of 17 inches between the floor and the first horizontal pipe was testified to by witnesses to be sufficiently large for the body of a man to go through. The appellee, through James E. Hooper, its superintendent and secretary, frequently saw and knew that the appellant and the other children were required and accustomed to remain on this platform while waiting to be called back to the spinning room to resume their labors. A Mr. Kailer, the appellee's representative in charge of these children, and whose orders they had to obey, nor any one else, ever warned or instructed these children of the dangers of this platform. It also appears in the record that on one occasion before the appellant fell an accident came near happening when the children were skating on the bridge. Mr. Kailer admitted that he knew of the dangerous character of this bridge or platform before the accident in question. His words were: "Expected somebody would fall out of there before they did."

The record discloses that four uncontradicted witnesses, all of whom had worked in the appellees' mill, testified that these doffer girls were for 15 minutes each hour ordered by the appellee's representative to this platform or bridge to make way for the larger girls, and when on this bridge or platform they played, in winter skated, sat on the floor of the bridge, knitted mats, and so remained until called back to the spinning room to resume their work of "doffing the bobbins." Three competent and qualified experts gave their opinions, and the reasons for it, that this bridge or platform was a dangerous place for children to occupy in play or idleness. The appellant testified that John Kailer was the head boss, and that "he would not let us play in the mill, and he would send us out there. *** We were in the big girls' way, and that room was right small. *** If we would be standing around the room, he would say, 'What are you doing,' and we would say 'Nothing,' and then he would say 'Go out on the shanty,' meaning the platform." Another witness testified: "We were told by Mr. Mike Han, the second boss, and Mr. Kailer, the first boss, to go in the shanty. We were not allowed in the cross alleys to sit in bobbin wagons, and we were not allowed in the alleys where the spinners were, because we were in the way. There was no place in these alleys to go. We were not allowed in the hallway, because they were winding steps, and we were sent out on the porch which when we were small, and it was called the 'shanty.' Q. You say Mr. Kailer told you to go out in the shanty? A. He did. He would say: 'Don't stay around those boxes or in the windows. Go out in the shanty. There isn't room in here.' The foreman could not help knowing we were playing, because he would come pass the window and see us there. All that were standing around would be sent out--think they had about nine doffs a day--every time we were through were sent out there by the foreman. *** At times Mr. Kailer would send them out because he would not let them stay in the alleys. *** They would be in the way of the spinners and spoolers and twister winders. *** No, sir; it wasn't a safe place for children. No, sir; it was not, certainly not. *** Any person or I could roll through under the rail off the floor. *** My reason for this is simply because there is no proper protection to keep them from falling. Mr. Kailer came to our house that night she fell in the morning. He came to our house that night and told my mother, and he said he expected somebody to fall out of there before they did." And this witness testified: "I heard him [Kailer] say that he looked for that before it did happen." The testimony tends to show in this case: (1) That the appellant was ordered by the appellee's representative to this bridge or platform after she had finished her work of doffing the bobbins until recalled to the spinning room to resume her work; (2) that this bridge or platform because of improper and defective guarding between the middle rail, and the floor was a dangerous place for children of tender years; (3) that the appellee before the accident knew of the dangerous character of this bridge or platform for children of tender years. This testimony as given by the appellant was uncontradicted and for the purposes of this case might be taken as conceded, and the question for us to decide is, as a matter of law, was the court below right in granting a prayer taking the case from the jury?

What is the law governing the duty of master to child servants of tender years when placed in a dangerous and exposed place or situation? When an employer places a young and inexperienced person at work in an exposed and dangerous situation, he is bound to give him due caution and instruction, and his failure to do so is not excused by the fact that the servant by the use of his eyesight, might have seen the peril and avoided it. It is the duty of one who employs young persons in his service to take notice of their apparent age and ability, and to use ordinary care to protect them from risks which they cannot properly appreciate, and to which they ought not to be exposed. This is a duty which...