Daniels v. New England Cotton Yarn Co.

• Decision Date: 20 May 1905
• Citation: Daniels v. New England Cotton Yarn Co., 188 Mass. 260, 74 N. E. 332 (Mass. 1905)
• Parties: DANIELS v. NEW ENGLAND COTTON YARN CO.
• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

188 Mass. 260

74 N.E. 332

DANIELS v. NEW ENGLAND COTTON YARN CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Bristol.

May 20, 1905

COUNSEL

Mayhew R. Hitch and Frank M. Sparrow, for plaintiff.

Andrew J. Jennings, Arthur E. Perry, and Otis S. Cook, for defendant.

OPINION

LATHROP, J.

This is an action of tort for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff while in the employ of the defendant.At the trial in the superior court at the close of the evidence the judge directed a verdict for the defendant and the case is before us on the plaintiff's exceptions.

At the time of the accident, on January 21, 1902, the plaintiff was 14 years and 5 months old, and was 4 feet and 11 inches in height.She began work for the defendant on September 2 1901, and was constantly employed on a 'Foster comb winder'; having been put in charge of one of the operators of that machine for the purposes of instruction.There were two of these comb winders placed end to end along the northerly side of the room in which the plaintiff worked.Each machine was about 30 feet long and about 5 feet wide.The machinery and mechanism were the same on each side.On the lower part of the frame were upright pins, on which the operatives placed paper tubes with cotton thread wound on them, called 'cops.'The thread from a pair of these cops was drawn upward and would by a 'winder' in a double strand upon a large paper tube, so as to form a large spool of thread.There were 50 of these spools, which were placed end to end in a long row on each side of a winder, and there were two girls on a side, each tending 25 spools.There was a passageway, called the 'winder alley,' about 2 feet 4 inches, between the comb winders and the side of the building.Next south of the winders, and in a line parallel with them, were placed several machines called 'twisters,' and there was a passageway, called the 'twister alley,' between the winder and the twister 2 feet and 11 inches wide.When the cops became empty of cotton they were often drawn upward by the unwinding thread, and off the pins on which they were placed, and they would fly off and fall to the floor, and it was the duty of the girls employed on the comb winders to pick them up.These empty cops would roll around on the floor.Sometimes they went over the twister, and sometimes they went under it.When the plaintiff applied for employment she was dressed in a short skirt, and wore her hair in a braid, the lower end of which came down to about the middle of her back.She wore it in the same way down to the time of the accident.She testified that there were three other girls about her age who wore their hair in the same way.The accident happened while the plaintiff was working in the twister alley, and while she was rising from a stooping position, with one knee on the floor, with her back to the twister, engaged in picking up the empty cops from the floor.The end of her braid in some manner was wound around one of the long spool-bearing shafts of the twister, just as she arose to a standing position, and her entire scalp was torn from her head before the machine could be stopped.

Before she was employed in the mill she had attended school for seven years, and there was evidence from her teachers that she was not of average intelligence, as she took seven years to complete a five-years course.For the purpose of showing that the plaintiff was below the average grade of intelligence, two physicians who had attended her and observed her at the hospital almost continually from the day of the accident to the time of the trial, which was on May 7 1903, and who were prepared to testify that they considered her below the average grade of intelligence, were asked the following question: 'From your observation of her when she first came to the...