Jutras v. Amoskeag Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 05 November 1929
• Citation: 147 A. 753
• Parties: JUTRAS v. AMOSKEAG MFG. CO.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

147 A. 753

JUTRAS

v. AMOSKEAG MFG. CO.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Hillsborough.

Nov. 5, 1929.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Hillsborough County; Sawyer, Judge.

Action by Laura Jutras against the Amoskeag Manufacturing Company. Plaintiff recovered a verdict, and defendant's motions for nonsuit and directed verdict were denied, subject to defendant's exceptions. Judgment for defendant.

Case, at common law, to recover for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff while in the employ of the defendant. Trial by jury, and verdict for the plaintiff. Motions for a nonsuit and directed verdict were denied by Sawyer, C. J., subject to the defendant's exception.

The plaintiff was a spinner in the defendant's mill, and was injured by slipping on the floor in front of one of the spinning frames where a workman, who was scrubbing the main alley at the end of the machines, had spilled wash water. The other material facts are stated in the opinion.

Doyle & Doyle and Paul J. Doyle, all of Manchester, for plaintiff.

Warren, Howe & Wilson and De Witt C. Howe, all of Manchester, for defendant.

MARBLE, J. The plaintiff's sole claim is based upon the alleged failure of the defendant to furnish her a safe work place. She does not contend that this alleged failure was due to any structural defect in the premises, but merely to the defendant's method of washing the floor. Ordinarily such work would constitute an act of service, creating mere transitory perils and giving rise to no liability on the part of an employer who had furnished safe materials and made proper rules. Smith v. Railroad, 73 N. H. 325, 61 A. 359; Manning v. Manchester Mills, 70 N. H. 582, 49 A. 91.

The frames in the spinning room where the accident happened were set up in rows of sixteen, extending from east to west across the room. At the southerly end of the frames on which the plaintiff was working there was a long passageway, called the "main alley," to distinguish it from the narrower alleys or spaces between the separate frames. It was customary to scrub the main alley each week and to remove the oil which had dropped down under the ends of the frames. According to the plaintiff's own testimony, it was not the practice to wash the spaces between the spinning frames, and she declared that they never had been washed during the nine months that she had been employed there. While the testimony of the scrubber is not altogether clear on the subject, the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence as a whole is that the spaces between the frames, if washed at all, were not washed simultaneously with the main alley. The operatives were working in these spaces, and scrubbing there would naturally interfere with their work.

On the day of the accident, the scrubber, while washing the main alley, permitted the water to flow over into the space in front of the spinning frame where the plaintiff was Standing. At the southerly end of the frame there was a receptacle for waste.

The plaintiff was going toward this receptacle with waste in her hand when she fell. The spot where she slipped was about three feet north of the main alley and in approximately the center of the four-foot space which separated the frames.

Proof of the defendant's negligence is entirely lacking. The plaintiff's assertion that scouring the floor with a wet broom and then mopping up the water was a dangerous method because, "if the mop was not used properly, some of the water was bound to remain on the floor," does not dispose of the case. So far as shown, the defendant had given the scrubber adequate instructions for the protection of his fellow employees. The burden of proving the contrary was upon the...