Connelly v. Eldridge

• Decision Date: 01 March 1894
• Citation: 160 Mass. 566,36 N.E. 469
• Parties: CONNELLY v. ELDRIDGE et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

160 Mass. 566

36 N.E. 469

CONNELLY v. ELDRIDGE et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

March 1, 1894

The following is plaintiff's bill of exceptions:

"This is an action of tort for damages for an injury to the plaintiff's hand by its being caught between the rollers of a steam ironing machine, known as a 'mangle.' There was evidence tending to show that the plaintiff was employed by the defendants to starch articles of clothing in a laundry in the Hotel Chatham. She had worked in the laundry some three or four weeks before she was injured. The plaintiff testified that up to the day of the injury her work had been to do starching; that in this work she used no machine, and had nothing to do with any machine till the day she was hurt; a person called the 'head laundress' (who was an employe of the defendants) directed the plaintiff as to her work and the manner of doing it, as well as gave the directions to the other employes; that the plaintiff's usual place of work was behind the mangle, and about five feet from it that she could see the clothes coming out through the mangle; that when she first came to the laundry she was curious about the machinery, and watched it with interest that she watched the operator who fed it, and saw how it was operated; that she had used the mangle for ironing handkerchiefs and napkins; that she had used it half a dozen times to 'put things through;' that she put them in just as the operator did; that she watched the operator, and sometimes stood beside her, and put in small articles, while the operator put in large articles, as sheets; that on the day of the accident she was told by the head laundress to go to work at the mangle; that the former operator had gone away on the day before; that the plaintiff went to work as directed at about 7 o'clock a.m.; that she was given no direction whatever as to the work, except to go to work at the mangle; that she 'put through' articles of clothing, as she had seen the former operator do. The plaintiff (with the aid of a wooden model) described the mangle. It was about five feet long and of such height that the plaintiff could see over it. It consisted (so far as material to this case) of two rollers, the lower 20-24 inches in diameter, of iron, and hot; the upper, 6-8 inches in diameter, and covered with white cloth. The upper roller was directly above, and in contact with, the lower. Behind the upper roller were two more rollers, also in contact with the large roller. There was a horizontal shelf about a foot in breadth directly in front of the point of contact of the upper and lower rollers. This shelf was about the height of the operator's waist. Below this shelf was a trough or box to hold articles of clothing before they were fed into the mangle. The power was steam, and was regulated by a foot pedal near the floor, and at the center of the machine. Across and upon the shelf, and just in front of the point of contact of the rollers, was a round metal rod, about an inch in diameter, called 'the guard.' An article of clothing, as a sheet, towel, etc., could be pushed under this guard, and upon the rollers. There was a space between the guard and the cloth-covered roller. The rollers, shelf, and guard extended across the entire width or front of the mangle. In operating the machine, the article to be ironed is pushed under the guard, and allowed to be drawn between the rollers. In doing this, the operator places her hands on the article, so as to hold it smooth and without wrinkles, both when started and when being drawn in. Articles come out from the rolls upon a shelf at the back, and were always put through more than once in order to completely dry them. In operating the machine the plaintiff testified that it was necessary for her fingers to go quite close to the rollers; that the ends of her fingers often touched the guard, which prevented them from being caught by the rollers. The plaintiff testified: That at about 2 o'clock p.m. on the day of the accident the mangle stopped, and that the engineer was called to repair it. That, when he left it, it was noticed that the white cloth upon the upper roller was soiled. That the head laundress then requested the plaintiff to assist her in putting a new covering cloth upon this roller. That the old cloth was first torn off the roller, as it could not be unrolled. Under this cloth was a soft cloth of felting, which was not removed. The head laundress then brought a new piece of white unbleached cloth as wide as the roller, and long enough to go round the roller more than once, and requested the plaintiff to assist her in putting this on the roller. That it was put upon the roller by

...