Lillian Butler v. John Frazee
| Decision Date | 21 December 1908 |
| Docket Number | No. 36,36 |
| Citation | 211 U.S. 459,29 S.Ct. 136,53 L.Ed. 281 |
| Parties | LILLIAN S. BUTLER, Plff. in Err., v. JOHN D. FRAZEE |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. John C. Gittings and Justin Morrill Chamberlin for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 460 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Leonard J. Mather and Charles A. Keigwin for defendant in error.
The plaintiff in error brought an action against the defend- ant in error in the supreme court of the District of Golumbia, in which she sought to recover damages for injuries suffered by her while in the defendant's employ. The injuries were incurred while the plaintiff was operating a mangle in the defendant's steam laundry. The function of the machine was to iron and dry clothes by drawing them between a cylinder and a series of rollers. The cylincer was of steel, 4 feet in diameter and 8 feet long and heated by steam. Above and in contact with it were five rollers. When in motion the cylinder and the rollers revolved inwardly. In front of the cylinder and closely fitted to it was a feed board, 12 to 15 inches wide and 8 feet long. It was the duty of the operator of the machine to spread the damp article to be ironed upon the feed board and push it forward until it touched the cylinder, by whose motion it was drawn upward to the point of engagement between the cylinder and the first roller, thereby being drawn through between the cylinder and the rollers. For the safety of the operator the machine was equipped with a finger guard, which was a bar of steel 8 feet long, 3 inches wide, and 1/8 of an inch thick, extending from side to side of the machine, and about 4 inches distant from the revolving cylinder. The guard was painted red. It was adjustable and could be set at a height above the feed board of from 1/4 of an inch to 4 inches, depending upon the thickness of the clothes to be ironed. On this mangle the guard had always been adjusted at a height of 1 1/2 inches above the feed board. The various parts of the machine described and their relation to each other and the mode of operation were in plain view of the operator. The plaintiff was twenty-two years of age, apparently of full intelligence, and before entering the employ of the defendant had had two years' experience in the operation of mangles in other establishments. She testified that those mangles were equipped with finger guards, which prevented the operator's hands from coming into contact with the steam cylinder, and that she had never known of any injury happening to an operator by con- tact with the cylinder. She received no instructions or warning of any danger. When she was set to work upon the mangle in October, 1902, the feed board was loose, thereby permitting clothing occasionally to drop between its edge and the steam cylinder. This condition continued unchanged until the time of the plaintiff's injury, and it was not reported or complained of by her. In the following December she was injured. The only testimony as to how the injury occurred was given by the plaintiff herself, and was stated in the bill of exceptions as follows:
A. Why, the morning of the accident nearly every piece we put in the mangle, Miss Cumberland's end would go in before mine and I would have to push, and my hand caught on. . . . A. The morning of the accident nearly every piece would catch on Sidney's side before it would catch on mine; and the table cloth would take my hand right on up with it. It dropped down between the board and the cylinder, and when it caught, it carried my hand right on up with it. . . . A. Well, the linen would drop down between the board and the cylinder and you had to push it up.
Q. Do you mean us to understand that you put your hand deliberately inside this finger guard and down into the space between the feed board and the cylinder?
A. No, sir.
Q. How did the linen drop?
A. The linen instead of going in would drop down between the board and the cylinder and you would push it up, and the young lady working on the other side, hers would catch before mine.
Q. You had to get hold of the end in some way to push it up?
A. No, sir; you had to push it up the feed board.
Q. If the edge of the linen you were feeding had dropped down between the feed board and the cylinder, how could you push it up?
A. You could push it up and it would come down wrinkled.
Q. If it had dropped down between the feed board and the cylinder, how could you push it up?
A. It dropped down between the feed board and the cylinder, and when you pushed it up and it came out of the mangle it would come out wrinkled.
Q. You did not hold the table cloth as it fed into the machine?
A. Yes, I had hold of the table cloth.
Q. You pushed the table cloth over the feed board; but you could not catch hold of it, as a matter of fact?
A. I had hold of the table cloth and was pushing it up and it dropped. And this day it was worse; every piece we put in, it dropped down and we had to push it up; and as I pushed it up in some way or other it took my hand with it.
Q. You say it was getting worse?
A. Yes. We had to sprinkle the clothes every day, and this day we had to sprinkle the clothes more than ever.
Q. And that is the only day you put your hand inside the finger guard?
A. Yes.
Q. Why did you put your hand inside then?
A. I didn't put my hand inside. The table cloth pulled it in. My hand was on the table cloth pushing it up, and the table cloth caught and it caught my hand with it.
Q. On this particular occasion even you didn't push your hand inside the finger guard?
A. No, sir; I didn't put my hand under the finger guard until the table cloth pulled it under.
Q. So the table cloth had hold of your hand before your hand had gotten past the finger guard?
A. The table cloth dropped and I gave it another push to make it catch, and after it dropped it caught it on the cylinder and carried my hand right with it.
Q. So that your hand had gone past the finger guard before the table cloth caught it and carried it into the mangle?
A. The table cloth took my hand right along with it.
Q. What I want to find out is the exact time that this table cloth became wrapped around your hand in such a way as to take it into that mangle?
A. The table cloth dropped. Sidney's end had gone in and my end had dropped, and I pushed it and it caught. As soon as the table cloth—it caught, and, after it caught, in some way it took my hand right up with it.
Q. Where did it drop? Between the feed board and the cylinder?
A. Between the feed board and the cylinder.
Q. And it was not until after it dropped that your hand was caught?
A. It dropped between the feed board and the cylinder, and I had my hand on the feed board to make it catch, and my hand caught and went right up with it.
The plaintiff offered the testimony of expert witnesses, who said that no kind of laundry work required the finger guard to be more than 1/2 an inch above the feed board. Apart from the extent of the injuries, this was all the evidence tending to sustain plaintiff's cause of action. The presiding judge directed a verdict to be returned for the defendant. Upon exceptions this ruling was sustained by the court of appeals, and the case was brought here by writ of error.
The evidence tended to show that, in one respect, at least, the machine operated by the plaintiff was out of repair. The feed board was loose, thereby permitting the fabric to be ironed sometimes to drop between it and the steam cylinder. How far this was a cause contributing to the injury does not clearly appear, and at the bar it was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duggan v. Heaphy
...the risk? That the law of the federal Supreme Court is not with the majority seems to be put beyond controversy by Butler v. Frazee, 211 U. S. 459, 29 Sup. Ct. 136, 53 L. Ed. 281, from which the rule laid down in Fraser v. Blanchard, 83 Vt. 136, 73 Atl. 995, 75 Atl. 797, with only slight ve......
-
St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Bridges
...apparent, employee is estopped from denying appreciation of danger. C. B. & Q. R. Co. v. Shalstrom, 195 F. 725 and 728-9; Butler v. Frazee, 211 U.S. 459, 53 L.Ed. 281. The verdict is excessive and so much so as to evince passion and prejudice. 2 Roberts F. Liab. of Carriers (2 Ed.), sec. 91......
-
Webber v. Terminal Railroad Assn.
...contradiction, from the plaintiff's own evidence, the question becomes one of law for the decision of the court." [Butler v. Frazee, 211 U.S. 459, 29 Sup. Ct. 136, 53 L. Ed. In two very recent decisions the United States Supreme Court, even though there was no evidence of actual knowledge o......
-
Weaver v. Mobile & Ohio Railroad Co., 32140.
...94 C.C.A. 563. (b) Assuming such negligence, the risk thereof was assumed by plaintiff as a matter of law, in any event. Butler v. Frazee, 211 U.S. 459, 53 L. Ed. 281; Southern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Berkshire, 254 U.S. 415, 65 L. Ed. 335; C. & O. Railroad Co. v. Leitch, 275 U.S. 429, 48 Sup. Ct. ......