Sims v. Lindsay

• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: CLARK, J
• Citation: Sims v. Lindsay, 122 N.C. 678, 30 S.E. 19 (N.C. 1898)
• Decision Date: 03 May 1898
• Parties: SIMS. v. LINDSAY et al.

30 S.E. 19

122 N.C. 678

SIMS.

v.LINDSAY et al.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 1898.

Master and Servant —Contributory Negli-gence—Question for the Jury—Sufficiency of Evidence—Rule in Regard to Notice of Defective Machine.

1. The court may hold that a defendant has failed to offer evidence to show contributory negligence, but the jury alone can say whether evidence offered is sufficient to show it.

2. Evidence of an operative in a laundry, in an action for an injury from a defective machine, that she thought the machine with which she was injured more dangerous than a former one she had used, but that nobody had explained the machine to her, and she did not know a guard was necessary, and that she put her fingers close up to the rollers to get the linen in, is not sufficient to show contributory negligence.

3. An operative, by not declining to work at a machine lacking some of the safeguards seen on other machines, does not waive ail claim for damages from the defective machine, unless it is so clearly defective that the employe must be deemed to know of the extra risk

Appeal from superior court, Buncombe county; Timberlake, Judge.

Action by Carrie C. Sims against Robert Lindsay and others. Plaintiff submitted to a nonsuit, and appeals. Reversed.

C. C. Sims, the plaintiff, testified: "I have lived in Ashevllle for five years. Am 14 years old now, and was 13 when my handwas hurt. I worked at Biltmore one week for defendants, who were operating a steam laundry. They washed and ironed, and did general laundry work. When I went to work there, Morgan said he was a partner with Lindsay, and the concern was called Biltmore Steam Laundry. I worked there one week, and got my hand so mashed in the machine as to necessitate the amputation of my fingers on that hand. I was ironing at the time, and it was hurt In the ironer. I suffered a great deal for two months, and was attended by Drs. Crawford and Merri-weather. The machine has large rollers, and garments ironed go through these rollers. There was nothing between me and the rollers, nor any guard or protection. The rollers were hot, and one had steam In it. I had worked in the Asheville Steam Laundry before, but the machine there had a guard on it. Worked there a long time. Nobody explained the machine to me, or said anything about its being dangerous, and I did not know the guard was necessary." On cross-examination: "The machine at Biltmore had no guard on it at all I saw the machine was dangerous. I thought it more dangerous than the one at Asheville Laundry, because it had no guard. I didn't know it had ever had a guard." Redirect: "I had to put my fingers up close in order to get linen in." Dr. Crawford testified: "I was one of the physicians who attended plaintiff and dressed her wounds. She suffered a great deal, and was a long time getting well." Dr. Merriweather testified: "I heard Mr. Lindsay say that it was the fault in not having the guard there. He said, 'Go ahead and attend the case, ' and he would pay it, because the injury was done by his machinery. We told him it would cost $100, in work and drugs, and he said he would pay it; the cause of the accident was due to the guard being off." Cross-examination: "Lindsay said he would pay it because he wanted no trouble over it; indicating he might have trouble. He said the guards were off, and that they should have been on there. He was very anxious about the case." Witness further stated that Lindsay told him after the accident that the guard ought to have been on, but it had been taken off by a colored boy, who said it was in the way. He said it was off the morning the plaintiff went to...