Paducah Box & Basket Co. v. Parker

• Decision Date: 11 May 1911
• Citation: 136 S.W. 1012,143 Ky. 607
• Parties: PADUCAH BOX & BASKET CO. v. PARKER.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

136 S.W. 1012

143 Ky. 607

PADUCAH BOX & BASKET CO. v. PARKER.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 11, 1911

Appeal from Circuit Court, McCracken County.

Action by Ruby Parker, by her next friend, against the Paducah Box &amp Basket Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Berry &amp Grassham, W. A. Berry, and C. C. Grassham, for appellant.

David Browning, F. E. Graves, and Hendrick & Crice, for appellee.

CARROLL J.

The appellee, Ruby Parker, a girl about 16 years old, was employed in stitching bottoms in wire baskets in the factory of appellant. Ellen Vickers and Clara Tubbs were employé in the factory, operating machines that made the wire baskets and Ruby Parker, with the consent and approval of the manager of the factory, was employed by them as a helper or assistant. Her principal duties as such assistant were to stich bottoms on the baskets made on the machines by the two operatives mentioned; but she also rendered any other service to them that they requested. The machines in the factory, or at least some of them, were run by a shaft extending along the wall about 18 inches above the floor and the same distance from the wall. Immediately over this shaft was a table on which spools, filled with wire were kept for the use of the operatives. On the day Ruby Parker sustained the injuries complained of, she was requested by Clara Tubbs to go to the table and get a spool of wire and bring to her. In obedience to this request, she went to the table, and while in the act of getting the wire, the rapidly revolving shaft caught her apron, with the result that she was twisted and dragged with great force and violence around the shaft and horribly mangled and bruised. To recover damages for the injuries inflicted, she brought this action against the appellant company, charging that it was guilty of negligence in falling to furnish her a reasonably safe place in which to work, in the particular that it failed to have the shaft protected by a casing or guard.

It is plain from the evidence that this shaft could, without interfering with its efficiency or operation and with little expense, have been protected by a casing or a guard that would have prevented it from catching the clothing of operatives; and, that the company was negligent in failing to have it so protected, we have no doubt. In factories like this, where girls and women are employed, there is little excuse for leaving unprotected, in places where the operatives in the performance of their duties are required to be or go, machinery like this that is liable at any moment to kill or cripple them, and that can be made reasonably safe without interfering with its efficiency. The appellant company, in failing to have this shaft protected or guarded did not furnish to appellee a reasonably safe place in which to work, and in so failing committed towards her a breach of duty for which it was justly required to respond in damages, as appellee was not guilty of such contributory negligence as would defeat a recovery.

But it is said in argument that appellee should not recover, because she was employed by Ellen Vickers and Clara Tubbs, and not by the appellant company. There is no merit in this contention. Her...