Lowe Mfg. Co. v. Payne

• Decision Date: 21 April 1910
• Citation: 52 So. 447,167 Ala. 245
• Parties: LOWE MFG. CO. v. PAYNE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

52 So. 447

167 Ala. 245

LOWE MFG. CO. v. PAYNE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 21, 1910

Appeal from Law and Equity Court, Madison County; Tancred Betts Judge.

Action by Clara Payne against the Lowe Manufacturing Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Lawrence Cooper and George P. Cooper, for appellant.

Taylor & Drake, for appellee.

SIMPSON J.

This is an action, by the appellee against the appellant, for damages on account of an injury to the hand received by the plaintiff as an employýe of the defendant. The injury complained of is the loss of a portion of one of the fingers of plaintiff, and the first count alleges defects in the ways, works, etc., in that the cogs were not sufficiently covered to prevent injuries, and that said defect had not been remedied, etc (in the language of subdivision 1 of section 3910, Code of 1907). The second count alleges that plaintiff was a minor 12 years old, working at a spinning frame, under the orders of a section hand, who ordered her to work at said spinning frame machine, and to whose orders she was bound to conform and did conform, etc., and that "the said Jim Hudgins, as section hand," failed to inform plaintiff of the defective and dangerous condition of the machine, which he knew, and ordered her to clean the cogs while the machine was in rapid motion, etc. The third count is based upon the inexperience of the plaintiff, the failure to warn her of the dangers, and ordering her to clean the cogs while in motion. Demurrer was sustained to count 4, and count 5 relies upon the negligence of said Hudgins, who had superintendence, etc., in directing plaintiff to perform dangerous work; she being inexperienced, etc. Pleas of contributory negligence and assumption of risk were interposed.

No evidence was offered by the defendant. The plaintiff testified that she was 14 years old last December; that she received the injury while cleaning the frame, and that "Jim Hudgins, section hand," ordered her "to clean the frame when it was running"; also that she had been engaged in the work for nearly a year, that she cleaned around the cogs every day, but that she always stopped the frame before cleaning, until the day of the injury; that she was rubbing around the cogs with a piece of cotton when her hand was caught; that the cogs were all covered by a case but she got behind the case and put her hand in under the case, where the wheels were, and got caught; that she could have stopped the frame, and the cogs would have stopped running, in which case there would be no danger; that the lever by which the cogs would be stopped was easily movable by the hand; that she knew the cogs were turning when the frame was running; that she knew it was dangerous to touch the cogs when in motion; that she had done the same work at the knitting mills for several months before going to work at defendant's mill; that she knew the spinning frame well, and knew all about the frame, that there was nothing about it that she did not fully understand; that when she first went to work she was told that the cogs were under the casing, and that it was dangerous to handle them when the frame was running; that the frame was in good order, and there was no defect about it; that she had attended school for four years, and could read and...