Case ID: ny-st-rep_19/html/0061-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Clement, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Annie F. Coffey, Appl’t, v. Leonard Chapal, et al, Resp’ts.
    
      (City Court of Brooklyn, General Term,
    
    
      Filed November 27, 1888.)
    
    1. Negligence—When child aged eighteen guilty of contbibutoby NEGLIGENCE.
    On the trial of an action brought to recover damages for injuries sustained by plaimiff, it appeared that the plaintiff was eight'-en years of age, and had worked on similar machines before. That at the time she was injured, she left her place i-n front of the machine, and went around to the side, where she could plainly see the belt which drove the machine, raised the lid which covered the roller, and put in her hand That it was caught by the “ picker,” which was making 000 revolutions a minute. She had done noth'ng to stop the machine, and had no reason to believe that it had been stopped. Held, that she was guilty of contributory negligence; that a girl, eighteen years of age, who had worked on machinery, did no. require instruction that it was dangerous to put her hands near rollers revolving with such rapidity.
    
      Tighe & Sweetzer, for appl’t; Joseph M. Pray, for resp’ts.
   Clement, J.

The plaintiff worked for the defendants, and while in their employ, on May 9,1887, sustained injuries, and brought this action to recover damages for their alleged negligence. She was non-suited at the trial term, and from the judgment of dismissal, this appeal is taken.

No proof was offered at the trial tending to show that the machine, on which the plaintiff was at work when she was injured, was either unsafe, defective, insecure or imperfect, and the counsel for the plaintiff did not so claim on the argument. It appears in the case that the plaintiff was put at work on the morning of May ninth, by the foreman' of defendants, on a machine which is commonly known as a picker, and the same became out of repair, whereupon plaintiff asked the foreman to put it in order, which he aid. A second and third time she called upon him to fix it, and then he said to plaintiff, take your oil can and fix it yourself; try and fix it yourself.” Afterwards, and at noon of the same day, the machine became again out of order, and the plaintiff intending to fix it, raised the lid or box which covered the roller, ana put in her hand, and it was caught by the pickers, which were making 3,000 revolutions a minute,

It also appears that the plaintiff was eighteen years of age and had worked on similar machines before, and that, at the time she was injured, she left her place - in front of the picker, and went around to the side, where she could plainly see the belt which drove the machine. She had done nothing to stop it, and had no reason to believe that it had been stopped. There was some question about the insufficiency of light, but it is conceded that plaintiff could see plainly to work on the machine, and if so, she could tell whether it was in motion or not. If she took it on herself to fix the machine when in motion, then, in view of her age and knowledge, it was a risk she voluntarily assumed, and, if she was injured, the defendants were not, liable therefor. A girl of eighteen years, who has worked on machinery, does not require instructions that it is dangerous to put her hand near rollers revolving 3,000 times a minute.

There is another ground on which the judgment of dismissal can be sustained. The complaint charges simply that the machine was unsafe and defective, of which there was no proof, and there is no allegation of any other negligent act on the part of the defendants.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Van Wyok, J., concurs.