Gaudet v. Stansfield

• Decision Date: 08 January 1903
• Citation: 65 N.E. 850,182 Mass. 451
• Parties: GAUDET v. STANSFIELD et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

182 Mass. 451

65 N.E. 850

GAUDET v. STANSFIELD et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Essex.

January 8, 1903

COUNSEL

Peters &

Cole, for plaintiff.

Knox Coulson & Currier, for defendants.

OPINION

LATHROP J.

At the time of the accident the defendants were the proprietors of a steam laundry. The plaintiff was over 19 years of age, and had been in the employ of the defendants about 10 weeks, and had worked on a mangle about 3 weeks. This machine was about four feet high, and consisted of a steam chest, which rested on the floor, and was about seven or eight feet long and about two feet high. Upon the steam chest was a roll of the same length, and about two and a quarter feet in diameter. This roll was covered with felt, canvas, and linen, and revolved three or four times a minute. By moving a lever the distance between the steam chest and the roll could be regulated. In front of the machine was a wooden apron, on the edge of which was a brass rail, called a 'guide.' From the top of the guide to the steam chest was two or three inches, and from the guide to the roll was about two inches. The mangle was used to iron clothes. The steam chest was full of steam, and was extremely hot. In using the machine the operator stood in front of it, and passed the clothes over the brass guide. They were then caught between the roll and the steam chest, and the moisture was dried out of them. The machine was not boxed in, and all the parts of it could be seen. The plaintiff came from New Brunswick, and spoke French. She testified that she could not speak English when she went to work in the laundry, but understood it somewhat. For three weeks before the accident she had worked on the mangle; at first with the first-named defendant, who, as one of her witnesses testified, taught her personally. This witness also worked at times on the mangle with the plaintiff. At the time of the accident the plaintiff was working alone. She gave this account of how the accident happened: 'I was ironing sheets on the mangle at the time I was hurt. There was a wrinkle in the sheet. I took my right hand to try to smooth it. The first thing I knew, my left hand was between the roll and the sheet, and my hand was drawn into the mangle.' She further testified that she pushed the sheet with her left hand; that she did not know how her left hand happened to get in between the roll and the brass piece; that she was watching her right hand, taking out the wrinkles, and was not looking at her left hand; and the next thing she knew her hand was up between the roll and the brass guide. The only other witness to the accident was a Mrs. Reed, called by the plaintiff. She was in the employ of the defendants at the time of the accident, but had left their employ before the trial. She testified that she was coming into the room, and the plaintiff was putting a sheet through the mangle, smoothing it down with her right hand that the plaintiff looked up as she came in, and smiled, and in an instant she was crying for help; that she saw the witness come into the room, and turned and smiled; that she turned her eyes away from her work; and that her right hand was smoothing out wrinkles, and the next thing she knew the plaintiff's left hand was in the machine. This witness testified after the plaintiff had given her testimony, but the plaintiff was not again put on the stand to contradict her. If the testimony of Mrs. Reed is to be taken as true,--and it is uncontradicted,--the accident was not caused by any want of instructions, but by the inattention of the plaintiff to her work, for which the defendant is not responsible. Cheney v. Middlesex Co., 161 Mass. 296, 37 N.E. 175 and cases cited. Wilson v. Cotton Mills, 169 Mass. 67, 47 N.E. 506. The same result is reached in another way. The declaration alleges that the plaintiff's mental capacity and intelligence was below the average of other girls of her age, which the defendants ought to have known from her appearance. It also alleges want of instructions. We find nothing in the evidence to show that there was anything in the appearance of the girl indicating that she was not of average intelligence, or was wanting in mental capacity. Her aunt, who took her to the defendants, testified that she told one of them that the plaintiff ...