Hotel Dieu v. Armendarez
Decision Date | 02 April 1919 |
Docket Number | (No. 44-2706.) |
Parties | HOTEL DIEU v. ARMENDAREZ. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Action by Romana Armendarez against the Hotel Dieu. Judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals (167 S. W. 181), and defendant brings error. Affirmed on recommendation of the Commission of Appeals.
T. A. Falvey and Davis & Goggin, all of El Paso, for plaintiff in error.
Ralf Border and Lea M. Grady & Thomason, all of El Paso, for defendant in error.
The defendant, Hotel Dieu, is a religious corporation organized for the purpose of maintaining and operating a hospital. The services of the hospital are given free to those who cannot afford to pay; and all sums received for services are expended in the maintenance of the establishment, the payment of a mortgage debt, and of an annual sum for the maintenance of the mother organization located in another state. Defendant owns and operates a laundry in connection with the hospital. The plaintiff, Romana Armendarez, was an employé of defendant and, while at work in the laundry, was injured by having her hand drawn in between the revolving rollers of the mangle while she was in the act of releasing from the machine some garments which had become entangled therein. This action was brought to recover damages for the injuries thus received. The case has been twice tried. Upon the first trial, the court instructed a verdict for defendant upon the theory that it was, from the nature of its purposes and business, exempt from liability in the matters complained of. The judgment rendered thereon was reversed by the Court of Civil Appeals. 145 S. W. 1031. The second trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff, which was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals. 167 S. W. 181.
The machine upon which plaintiff was injured consisted of a large cylinder or roller and three smaller ones in position above it, and the appliances by which they were connected with a steam engine by means of which the rollers were pressed together and caused to revolve. The person feeding the machine stood in front of a table or platform provided for that purpose and placed the garments under a guard railing which had been arranged to protect the hand of the feeder. The garments were gripped between the large and small revolving rollers and by action of the machine carried out on the opposite side. At the time of her injury, plaintiff was about 17 years of age and had been in the service of defendant about 7 weeks, during which time she fed the mangle 2 days in each week. She was without previous experience in the operation of machinery. Mrs. Sawyer was forewoman in charge of the laundry, and it was her duty to instruct and direct plaintiff and the other employés in their work. She testified:
The plaintiff testified:
It is not contended that plaintiff's injury was caused by reasons of any fault or defect in the mangle. The sole ground of negligence relied upon to sustain the judgment is that defendant failed to instruct the plaintiff in the use of the mangle and to warn her of the dangers incident to its operation.
The main questions for determination are: Whether the risk was an obvious one which the plaintiff assumed; and, if not, whether the defendant was negligent in failing to warn and instruct plaintiff as to the dangers incident to her work.
It is the duty of the master to warn and instruct a minor servant as to the dangers incident to the service which are known to the master or which could be known by the exercise of reasonable care, and which the servant, because of immature judgment and want of experience, cannot reasonably be expected to know and appreciate. If the servant has sufficient capacity to appreciate the danger or has acquired the knowledge otherwise than by instruction from the master and is as fully...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
President and Dir. of Georgetown College v. Hughes
...Armendarez v. Hotel Dieu, Tex.Civ. App. 1912, 145 S.W. 1030; Hotel Dieu v. Armendariz, Tex.Civ.App. 1914, 167 S.W. 181, affirmed, Tex.Com.App.1919, 210 S.W. 518; City of McAllen v. Gartman, Tex.Civ.App.1935, 81 S.W.2d 147 (paying patient); cf. St. Paul's Sanitarium v. Williamson, Tex.Civ.Ap......
-
Eads v. Young Women's Christian Assn., 28541.
...951; Horndern v. Salvation Army, 199 N.Y. 233, 92 N.E. 626; McInerny v. St. Luke's etc. Assn. 122 Minn. 10, 141 N.W. 837; Armendarez v. Hotel Dieu (Tex.), 210 S.W. 518. (4) The charter of the corporation clothed the trustees with the exclusive power and duty to manage its property and keep ......
-
Eads v. Young Women's Christian Ass'n
... ... 233, 92 N.E. 626; McInerny v. St. Luke's etc ... Assn. 122 Minn. 10, 141 N.W. 837; Armendarez v ... Hotel Dieu (Tex.), 210 S.W. 518. (4) The charter of the ... corporation clothed the ... ...
-
Ray v. Barrington
...in the pleadings of the other. Hotel Dieu v. Armendariz (Tex. Civ. App.) 167 S. W. 181, 182, and authorities there cited (affirmed, 210 S. W. 518); Law Reporting Co. v. Texas Grain & Elevator Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 168 S. W. 1001, and authorities there cited; Clem Lumber Co. v. Elliott Lumber......