Henderson Cotton Mills v. Warren's Adm'r

• Decision Date: 02 December 1902
• Citation: 70 S.W. 658
• Parties: HENDERSON COTTON MILLS v. WARREN'S ADM'R.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

70 S.W. 658

HENDERSON COTTON MILLS v. WARREN'S ADM'R.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

December 2, 1902

Appeal from circuit court, Henderson county.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by John P. Warren's administrator against the Henderson Cotton Mills. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Montgomery Merritt, for appellant.

Dixon &amp Lockett, for appellee.

HOBSON J.

This action was instituted by appellee, as administrator of John P. Warren, a boy 11 years old, to recover for his death by reason of the alleged negligence of appellant while in its service. It was alleged in the petition that the regular work assigned the intestate was as a picker of waste, in what is known as the "lap room" of the mill, but that by the negligence of its servants, and in disregard of his safety he was allowed by it to engage in the hazardous work of throwing a heavy belt off a machine in the carding room, and that by reason of his tender years, and apparent lack of strength and discretion, as was known to the defendant, he was incapable of performing this dangerous service, and while engaged in the work was caught in the belt and killed. The proof for the plaintiff tended to sustain the allegations of the petition. It showed that the work in the lap room was safe, and that the little boy was allowed by the defendant to work on the carding machine, at which an elder brother of his worked. It would appear from the proof that for some days before he was killed he would go and assist his brother when not engaged in the lap room, and the jury were warranted from the proof in concluding that this was with the knowledge of the defendant's servants in charge. At the time he was killed he went in with his coat on one arm, and his dinner bucket in the other hand. He undertook to throw a belt off the carding machine, and seems to have struck his foot against one of the pulleys near the floor. His coat caught on an upper pulley, which had linseed oil on it, making it sticky, and his arm was drawn into the machine, which threw him up against some irons and killed him. It was manifestly work too dangerous to be assigned to a child of his years and the proof is clear that no instruction was given him as to the danger. In 20 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d Ed.) 98, 99, the rule which is sustained by the general current of authority is thus stated: "Even where the danger is patent or open to...