Podvin v. Pepperell Meg Co.

• Decision Date: 22 December 1908
• Citation: 72 A. 618,104 Me. 561
• Parties: PODVIN v. PEPPERELL MEG CO.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

72 A. 618

104 Me. 561

PODVIN

v. PEPPERELL MEG CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Dec. 22, 1908.

(Official.)

On Motion from Supreme Judicial Court, York County.

Action by Angele Podvin against the Pepperell Manufacturing Company. Verdict for plaintiff. Motion to set aside sustained.

Action on the case to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff while operating a spinning machine in the defendant's mill, and which said machine the plaintiff alleged to be "unsafe, unsuitable, inconvenient, out of repair, and dangerous, in that there projected from a shaft upon or connected with said machine a set screw, nut or bolt, the same projecting a certain distance, to wit, one inch," and that the set screw caught in her hair, and "stripped her scalp from neck to eyebrow." Plea, the general issue, with brief statement as follows: "That any and all the risks, dangers, and conditions of which the plaintiff complains in her writ and declaration were assumed by the plaintiff prior to the injuries alleged to have been received by the plaintiff."

The plaintiff recovered a verdict for $2,500, and the defendant filed a general motion to have the verdict set aside.

Argued before EMERY, C. J., and WHITEHOUSE, SAVAGE, PEABODY, and SPEAR, JJ.

Cleaves, Waterhouse & Emery, for plaintiff. Nathaniel B. Walker and George F. & Leroy Haley, for defendant.

EMERY, C. J. This case is one of that class now come to be known as "set screw cases." The evidence for the plaintiff, and the uncontradicted and credible evidence for the defendant, establishes the following as the version to be taken as true: The plaintiff was a woman 59 years of age in the employ of the defendant company in its cotton mill, and had charge of and operated a somewhat complex spinning machine known as an "intermediate." Two revolving metal cones, one above the other, ran lengthwise this machine under the spindles. The lower cone was within two inches of the floor. The upper cone was 24 1/2 inches above and directly over the lower cone. The small end of the upper cone was connected with the end of a shaft by a metal collar held and tightened in place by set screws projecting five-eighths of an inch above the surface of the collar. The diameter of the collar and cone at this end was 2 1/2 inches. When in operation, this cone revolved at a speed of 280 revolutions a minute. When at rest, the collar and set screws were plainly visible, being opposite a large window with plenty of light, and with nothing to conceal them from any one looking the machine over. The whole machine, including the cones and set screws, was of standard pattern and in common use in cotton mills.

The plaintiff had operated a similar machine for 8 or 10 years, and this particular machine for 15 years, during which time no change had been made in the cone or set screws. In addition to tending the machine in its operation, she, as was her duty, cleaned it as often as twice a week and oftener of the dirt and cotton waste that accumulated on its various parts, including the cones and set screws. She cleaned all around the gears and wheels, and also the ends of the cones and the set screws, getting out with a short-handled brush the cotton accumulating there. She also washed the floor under the cones and machine at least twice a week.

By the vibration of the machine while in operation, empty bobbins would at times be shaken from their shelf, or creel, and fall upon the floor under the machine. It was the duty of the plaintiff to pick these fallen bobbins from the floor as they fell, and restore them to their places. Frequently, to do this, she would need to reach her hand and arm in between the two cones to reach the fallen bobbins where they lay on the floor. She usually did so while the cones were revolving, and this practice was well known to the defendant's superintendent and overseers in that room. Her attention was never called by them or any one to the set screws, or to any danger from set screws.

At last, after 15 years of such work by the plaintiff on and about this machine, as she was one day reaching down between the two revolving cones to pick up a fallen bobbin from the floor, her woman's hair became entangled in the set screws on the upper cone, and her scalp torn from her head. There was, of course, a danger that, while so picking up fallen bobbins from the floor, the plaintiff might be hurt by the revolving set screws. Was that danger a risk cast upon the defendant, or a risk assumed by the plaintiff?

The plaintiff claims that the risk was upon the defendant, because it did not have the set screws so countersunk or otherwise fixed as to remove all danger of injury from them. This claim is not well founded. It is not the legal duty of an employer of labor upon machines to provide and use the safest possible, or even safest known, machines. There must be no weakness, no want of repair, no dangerous features not visible to an observing operative or made...