The Republican journal., 1899-04-20
From the Maine Law Court.

The following rescript has been received
in the Sagadahoc county case of Angie
cunningham, admx. VS.. Bath Iron Works.
Rescript by Whtehouse, j.:
1t was the unquestioned duty of the de-
PENDANT to exercise ordinary care and fore
slght TO provide safe machinery and rea-
sonably safe place in and about which the
helpers and other laborers we're reuuir-
ed to. work; but the fufillment of this duty
must be tested by the experience of en-
plOyes who are themselves in the exercise
of due care and vigilance, and not with
reference to those who are themselves
negligent or venturesome, or the unfor-
tunate victims of simple and unaccounta-
BILE accidents. Absolute safety is not
guaranteed to the laborer by the contract
of employment
1.-The cog wheels and their gearing in
connection with which the injury was re-
ceived, were of the usual and familiar
type. There was nothing peculiarly dan
gerous about them. All the laborers in the
shop were constantly reminded by both
sight and hearing Of the power as we'll as
the existence of these wheels. The help
ers we're not required to operate the angle
iron shears, or to perform any duty within
three feet of the wheels on the inward
rolling side. Under these circumstances
the failure of the defendant to have these
wheels covered and guarded by hood,
| cannot be deemed negligence.
| 1.-The case fails to disclose any evil
dence whatever that there were scraps Of
angle iron or other waste material on
| the floor at the time of the accident.
| Whether failure to establish or enforce a
| regulation for the removal of such debris
| could be held negligence, and if so.
whether it must be deemed the negligence
OF fellow servant, it is unnecessary to
consider. There is no evidence of its ex-
istence at the time in question.
3-The obligation resting upon the EN-
| ployer to give the laborer such instruc-
tions as are reasonably necessary to en-
able him to understand che perlls to which
he is exposed, must be considered with
| reference to the reciprocal obligation rest
ing upon the laborer to exercise the SEN
ses and faculties with which he has been
endowed in order to discover and compre-
hend these perils for himself He is not
bound to inform the laborer of what he al
| ready knows, or what by the exercise of or
binary care and attention, he might have
known. 1t atfrmatively appears that the
| helper was a bright and intelligent youth,
who had just entered upon his 18th year.
| iio olo"iiy ll''b lhC OPpOiiuu ID ODSelNt
the revolving cog wheels from day TO day,
and the capacity to comprehend the dan
ger of coming in contact with their gear
ing. He had all the information upon that
subject which could have been derived
| fir ON the most elaborate instructions.
| At is settled law that if Il laborer
! continues in the service of his employer
! under such circumstances, he will! be
deemed to have waived all objections to
the machinery and appliances, and to have
voluntarily assumed the risks incident to
the service performed.
5-The plaintiff wholly fails to show at
tirmatively, either by direct evidence or by
legitimate interference flom any evidenc Q
in the case, that the interstate was in the ex-
ercse of due care, and did not negligent
ly contribute to the injury. This defcien-
cy in the pro- would alone be fatal to
the plaintiff action.
Motion sustained. Y erdict set aside