Daffron v. Majestic Laundry Co.
| Decision Date | 20 December 1905 |
| Citation | 41 Wash. 65,82 P. 1089 |
| Parties | DAFFRON v. MAJESTIC LAUNDRY CO. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Mitchell Gilliam, Judge.
Action by Katie Daffron against the Majestic Laundry Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.
John P. Hartman, for appellant.
P. D Hughes and Fenley Bryan, for respondent.
In the superior court respondent had a verdict and judgment against appellant in the sum of $2,800, from which judgment this appeal is taken.
The admitted facts, and those established by the evidence on behalf of respondent and by that portion of appellant's evidence which was undisputed, showed the following facts Respondent was injured by having her left hand caught and burned between the feed roll and cylinder of a 'mangle' upon which she was working as 'head feeder' in appellant's laundry; that said mangle consists of a long, hollow cylinder, about two feet in diameter and heated from within, and several small rolls and other apparatus; that its purpose is to smooth or 'iron' clothes after being washed; that the clothes are inserted between the cylinder and a feed roll on the side where the operator (known as the 'head feeder') stands, said cylinder revolving toward said operator at a speed of seven or eight revolutions per minute; that the clothes pass around on the cylinder one or more times, and are removed by an operator, known as a 'folder,' who stands on the opposite side of the mangle from the head feeder; that the mangle upon which respondent was injured is a machine of standard make and in common use; that in front of the head feeder, and extending parallel with the cylinder and feed roll, is a guard which is so placed for the purpose of preventing the hands of the operator from being carried between the rolls as she pushes the clothes into the mangle that this guard was round and about an inch or two in diameter, and so placed as to revolve when the hand passed along over it; that respondent had worked for four years in laundries, and in some where they had the same kind of mangle as that upon which she was injured; that she was an experienced 'mangler,' and had been operating this particular mangle for two weeks immediately preceding the injury; that, as head feeder, she was in charge of the machine and had supervision over three other operatives who worked in connection therewith; that the defects in the apparatus alleged in the complaint were all open, apparent and discernible to any one experienced in the operation of a mangle; that respondent knew all about its construction and condition, and knew of the ordinary dangers to be apprehended in working thereupon; that she had never made any complaint to appellant about the mangle or anything, except, in one instance, she spoke to appellant's superintendent of something which is not shown to have any connection with the cause of the injury in question, and except that one of her witnesses says that respondent, when she first came to the laundry, told the superintendent that the mangle did not look good to her; that the mangle had been in use five or more years; that respondent's hand was caught between the feed roll and cylinder and held until extricated by the superintendent and other employés; that she was at the time putting through the mangle some bartender aprons, with long strings; that her hand did not go between the guard and the feed roll, where the clothes are put in, but went over the top of the guard and between the feed roll and cylinder where it was caught and badly burned. Respondent claims that the strings upon the aprons, after going around the cylinder, were, in some manner, thrown over so as to fall upon and entangle her hand and forcibly pull it across the top of the guard, and then down back thereof and into the place where injured, and that she did not know that there was danger of this kind of an injury. Respondent bases her right to recover upon the contention that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blanco v. Sun Ranches
...is engaged in feeding clothing to the rollers of a laundry mangle, Bier v. Hosford, 35 Wash. 544, 77 P. 867; Daffron v. Majestic Laundry Co., 41 Wash. 65, 82 P. 1089; Kranich v. Knapp, 43 Wash. 85, 86 P. 207; sawing lumber or wood on a circular saw, Snyder v. Lamb-Davis Lumber Co., 64 Wash.......
-
Lepper v. Stetson & Post Lumber Co.
...P. 145; Anderson v. Pacific National Lumber Co., 111 P. 337. Learned counsel for appellant place some reliance upon Daffron v. Majestic Laundry Co., 41 Wash. 65, 82 P. 1089, Johnston v. Northern Lumber Co., 42 Wash. 230, 84 P. 627. We think, however, that these cases can be readily distingu......
-
Jensen v. Shaw Show Case Co.
... ... Robinson Mfg. Co., ... 48 Wash. 294, 93 P. 428. The respondent relies on Daffron ... v. Majestic Laundry Co., 41 Wash. 65, 82 P. 1089, ... Johnston v. Northern Lumber ... ...
-
Nordstrom v. Spokane & Inland Empire R. Co.
... ... rule has been recognized in this court, and is thus ... succinctly stated in Daffron v. Laundry Company, 41 ... Wash. 65, 82 P. 1089: '* * * Where an employer places a ... ...