Nelson-Bethel Clothing Co. v. Pitts

• Decision Date: 18 December 1908
• Citation: 114 S.W. 331
• Parties: NELSON-BETHEL CLOTHING CO. v. PITTS.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

114 S.W. 331

NELSON-BETHEL CLOTHING CO. v. PITTS.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

December 18, 1908

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Common Pleas Branch Second Division.

"To be officially reported."

Action by Edna May Pitts against the Nelson-Bethel Clothing Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Fred Forcht, Jr., and O'Neal & O'Neal, for appellant.

Edward Ogden & Peake and Ray Bizot, for appellee.

HOBSON J.

The Nelson-Bethel Clothing Company is a manufacturer of pants in Louisville. Edna May Pitts was in its service as the operator of a sewing machine. There were some 40 or 50 sewing machines in two rows, the ordinary Singer sewing machines, except that, instead of being operated by a pedal, the belt was passed over a wheel setting upon a shaft which ran under all of the sewing machines, and was turned by an electric motor. The belts operating the sewing machines were the usual sewing machine belts consisting of a round leather thong fastened together by a hook or hooks. Miss Pitts had been in the business of operating such machines something over five years, having worked in a number of similar establishments in the city of Louisville, and was regarded as a skilled hand. She had worked at this particular machine for two months when she was hurt on August 3, 1905. The machine table was 31 inches high. The drive wheel on the shaft was 11 inches in diameter. The wheel directly under the machine was 5 inches in diameter, and the distance between the wheel on the shaft and the wheel under the machine was 14 inches. The shaft was 1 3/8 inches in diameter. About two weeks before she had had trouble with her belt and had gone with it to the forelady, who had sent her to Pat Begley, whose business it was to fix the belts. She asked him for a new belt, and he refused to give it to her, but, instead, gave her a piece of belt about 1 1/2 feet long, and took out the worst part of her belt, telling her that her belt was all right, it was safe, and would not break any more. The belt then consisted of three pieces put together with hooks. She used the belt without any further trouble for two weeks, when one morning it began to break again, and it then broke seven times. When a belt would break, they would get hooks from Begley and fasten it together, and put it on themselves. Her statement, as to what took place at this point is as follows: "I took the belt back, and told Pat I could do nothing with this belt, it was rotten, and he took it out of my hands, and he said: 'You are crazy, girl. That belt is all right.' It was split in places, and he gave me three hooks, and he told me to go back and fix my belt. Well, I says: 'Pat, suppose you put this belt on yourself.' He says: 'No, I won't.' He said: 'I am not getting paid for putting on belts. I am getting paid for pressing.' Q. What time was that? A. The day I received my injury. Q. What were you doing at the time you were injured? A. I was throwing my belt on. We had to take a little string in our hands, and put it on the belt, you know, and hold the two ends in your fingers, and then get under there, all in a kneeling position, and you had to put your head and all under, and then you had to take that belt and throw it on like that, and just as I throwed it on I got caught. I had to get right down under, and the shaft would go around and touch your skirt, and, of course, the wheel come out that way, and you had to get pretty close to snap your belt on, because you were all crouched up under there. You had no way to move. You would have to hold your left hand somewhere while you were throwing on with the right hand, like that. I never did think there was danger in such a thing when I was told there was not. Q. Who told you there was not? A. Pat Begley. Q. Would you tell the jury whether Pat Begley or any one representing the company explained to you how to put the belt on and the dangers incident to the work? A. No, sir; no one had ever told me. Q. What inspection, if any, was made by any one representing this company of your belt? A. None." On cross-examination, she testified as follows: "Q. Now Miss Pitts, you understood perfectly well how to operate the machine, did you not? A. The machinery, the sewing part; yes, sir. Q. That was very simple? A. Not the belt. Q. That was very simple? A. The sewing, put the work under the foot of the machine was simple to do, but not to fix the belt. Q. You knew there was a revolving shaft under there, didn't you? A. I did. Q. You knew there was a little pulley that operated your machine, and, when, it was off of that pulley, your machine would stop, and the roller would go on? A. Yes, sir. Q. You knew that the way to start your machine was to put this belt over this larger pulley, didn't you? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was there anything about the machine that you did not know? A. I had no experience in putting on belts. I did not know it was dangerous at all. I relied on them telling me it was safe. Q. Relied on who? A. Pat Begley said I could not get hurt when I told him to put it on. Q. And with your right hand you were putting on this belt? A. I was. Q. Don't you know that your hair was caught down on the shaft at least 12 or 15 inches-- A. No, sir; the belt took my hair just as I put it on. One of the hooks or something skinned the side of my head, and took me. Q. The belt did? Well, your hair was not caught on the shaft according to your recollection? A. I don't know." When her hair was thus caught, it was wrapt around the shaft, and her whole scalp was torn from her head before the machinery could be stopped. Everything was torn off from the nape of the neck down to the bone, about one half of the eyebrow being torn off, and the right ear was pulled about an inch out of the head. There was a terrible hemorrhage from the wound, and there was also a fracture of the spine. She brought suit to recover for her injuries, and, a verdict and judgment having been entered

in her favor for the sum of $8,129.16, the defendant appeals.

The ground upon which the recovery was had was that the belt of the machine was not reasonably safe for use; that its defective and unsafe condition was known to the defendant,...