Russell v. Riverside Worsted Mills

• Decision Date: 23 January 1903
• Parties: RUSSELL v. RIVERSIDE WORSTED MILLS.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

54 A. 375

24 R.I. 591

RUSSELL

v. RIVERSIDE WORSTED MILLS.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Jan. 23, 1903.

Trespass on the case by Agnes Russell against the Riverside Worsted Mills. Heard on demurrer to the fourth count of the declaration. Demurrer sustained.

Argued before STINESS, C. J., and TILLINGHAST and ROGERS, JJ.

Clarence A. Aldrich and b. W. Grim, for plaintiff.

Walter B. Vincent, for defendant.

TILLINGHAST, J. The fourth count in the plaintiff's declaration sets out that the defendant was operating a certain swift-running and dangerous machine in its mill, where the plaintiff was employed, to wit, a spooler, with certain cogwheels and gears attached thereto; that the plaintiff was under the direction and control of the defendant in tending said machine, and was subject to the orders of the section hand; that, while she was so employed, certain water was accidentally overturned upon the floor under and near said machine, and that the plaintiff was then and there called from her regular employment by said section hand, to whose orders and directions she was subject, and directed to wipe up said water from the floor; that, being suddenly and unexpectedly called upon and directed to wipe up said water, in loud and threatening language and signs, she had no opportunity to examine and estimate the danger to which she would be subjected in obeying said direction of the section hand, and that neither he, nor any other person, warned her of the danger to which she would be exposed in obeying said order; that she proceeded to comply with said order, and, while in the exercise of due care in attempting to wipe up said water under and near said machine, her left hand was suddenly caught and entangled therein, and so badly crushed that it bad to be amputated. To this count the defendant has demurred on the ground that, so far as appears therein, the defendant was not negligent in the premises. We think the demurrer must be sustained.

The plaintiff does not allege that the machine by which she was injured was defective in any way, or that she did not know that it was dangerous. Indeed, she alleges that it was a swift-running and dangerous machine, and that it had certain cogwheels and gears attached thereto. It also appears that it was the machine which she was employed to tend; and hence it must be assumed that she was familiar with its operation, and also familiar with such parts thereof whether cogwheels, gears, or other appurtenances, as were open to her observation. She must have known that, if her hands came in contact with said cogwheels and gears, she was liable to be seriously injured, and hence that for her own protection she must take care not to expose herself to injury by coming in contact with such parts of said machine. See Morancy v. Hennessey, 24 R. I. 205. 52 Atl. 1021.

The mere fact that she was called from her regular employment by the section hand, and directed to wipe up water from the floor near to and underneath said machine, did not excuse her from exercising proper care to protect herself from injury While doing said work. Nor do we see that it is material that she was suddenly and unexpectedly ordered to do said work, or that the order was couched in threatening language. That she could see the machine about which she was at work, and knew that it was dangerous to put her hand in...