Shinn Glove Co. v. Sanders

• Decision Date: 06 March 1911
• Citation: 147 Ky. 349,144 S.W. 11
• Parties: SHINN GLOVE CO. v. SANDERS.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

144 S.W. 11

147 Ky. 349

SHINN GLOVE CO. v. SANDERS.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 6, 1911

Appeal from Circuit Court, McCracken County.

Action by Ava Sanders against the Shinn Glove Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Wheeler & Hughes, for appellant.

M. E Gilbert, for appellee.

WINN J.

The appellee, Ava Sanders, in January, 1911, was employed by the appellant, the Shinn Glove Company, in its manufacturing plant in Paducah, Ky. It appears that as a part of its plant the company maintained water-closets in the building for the use of its employés. On the day in question Miss Sanders accompanied by one of the other girls who worked in the factory, went into one of these closets. There was only a stool in the closet. After each of them had used it, they started out. The stool was supplied with an overhead tank. As they were preparing to leave the compartment the tank fell forward from the wall to which it was attached, and it or some one of the pipes about it struck Miss Sanders. She brought her action for damages against the glove company. Upon a jury trial, she obtained a verdict and judgment for $500; and the glove company appeals.

The amount awarded her does not appear to be excessive. She was thoroughly wetted by the water from the tank. It seems that her menstrual flow was then on. It stopped. The accident was on Tuesday. She went around for a few days, but was later confined to her bed, and had to have the services of a physician. Under treatment given by him her menstrual flow began again on Sunday. Since that time, according to the testimony, at each recurring period she suffers. She and her mother testified that she had no such trouble before. She testified that she had suffered constantly from headaches and that she was not able to go back to work any more; that the blow had made a knot upon the side of her head, and caused all the side of her face to turn black. A physician put upon the stand by the glove company testified in answer to a hypothetical question that he did not believe that the injury described would cause a permanent injury to Miss Sanders or to her menstrual flow. Upon cross-examination he said that his opinion was the result of his experience, but that he could not be absolutely certain about it. If the jury believed the evidence of the young woman and her mother, as they had the right to do, the amount awarded by them was not unreasonable.

Some complaint is made of the first instruction given, which is as follows: "The court instructs you that it was the duty of defendant at the time and place complained of by plaintiff to exercise ordinary care to have and keep its toilet room used by its employés in a reasonably safe condition for the use of such employés, and if you shall believe from the evidence in this case that defendant failed to exercise such care, and that the toilet room used by plaintiff at the time complained of was in a defective, unsafe, and dangerous condition, and the defendant knew this, or by ordinary care could have known it, then defendant is chargeable with negligence, and if you shall believe from the evidence that negligence on the part of defendant, and as defined to you by this instruction, was the direct and immediate result of the injuries to plaintiff, then the law is for the plaintiff and you will so find; but, unless you shall so believe from the evidence, the law is for the defendant and you will so find."

The appellant argues that from it the jury might very well have drawn the idea that there was an obligation upon the part of the glove company to put up and maintain the water-closets for the use of its employés. The instruction is not susceptible of this construction. It was admitted that the glove company did erect and maintain the toilet room; and the instruction only told the jury, in substance, that, having erected it, it was its duty to keep it in a reasonably safe condition. Certainly when once it had put up the toilet room for the use of its employés, and had thereby given them the opportunity, the invitation and the right to use it in connection with their work in the factory, it became, so far as all legal obligations were concerned, a part of its place of work, and the duty of the employer to furnish the employé a reasonably safe place to work applied as well...