The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1899-02-28

The following decision was received
from the Law court:
sAGADAHOC COUNTY.
Angie Cunningham, adm'x VS.. the Bath
Iron Works.
Rescript by whitehouse, Ut was the
unquestioped duty of the PENDANT to ex-
ercfse ordinary care and foresight to pro-
vide safe machinery and n reasonable safe
place in and about which the helpers
and other laborers were required to work ;
but the fulfillment of this duty must be
tested by the experience OF employees who
are themselves in the exercise of due care
and not with reference to those who are
themselves negligent or venturesome, or
the unfortunate victims of simple and I'M
accountable accidents. Absolute safety n
not guaranteed to the labortr by the con-
tract of the employment.
Tine cog wheels and their gearing In
connection with which the injury was re-
ceived, were of the usual and fam liar
type There was nothing peculiarly dan
gerous about them. All the laborers in
the shop were constantly reminded hy
both sight and hearing of the power as
well as of the existence of these wheels.
The helpless were not required to operate
the angle sheers. or TO perform any DUTY
within three feet of the wheels on the in
ward rolling side. Under these oircum-
stances 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 evi
dence Whatever that there were scraps of
angle iron or other waste material on the
| floor at the time of the accident. Whether
Ia failure to establish or enforce regula-
ton for the removal of such debris could
be held negligence, and IL 40, whether 1t
must he deemed the negligence OF fellow
servant, 1t is unnecessary to consider.
There is no evidence of Its existence at
the time in question.
3.-Ihe obligation resting upon the en-
ployer to give the laborer such instru
ments as are reasonably necessary to en-
| able him 10 understand the perils TO
which he is exposed. must be considered
with reference to the reciprocal obligation
| resting upon the laborer to exercise the
sense and faculties with which he is en-
dowed in order to discover ana compre-
bend these perils for himself. He is not
bound TO inform the laborer of what he
alIeldy knows or what by the exercise of
OF binary care and attention, he might
nave known. 1t affirmatively appears
that the helper was u bright md iuteili
gent youth who has just entered upon his
eighteenth year. He clearly had the OPP
portunity to observe the cog wheels from
day to day, and the capacity to compre-
bend the danger OF coming in contact
with their gearing. He had all the infor-
nation upon that subject which could
have been derived from the most elaborate
Instructions.
At Is settled law that If laborer
con tinues 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 Incl
dent to the service performed.
5,-rhe plaintiff wholly fails to show
affirmatively either by direct evidence oil
bv legitimate inference from any evidence
in the case, that the interstate was in the
exercise of due care. and aid not negli'
gently contribute to the injury. This de-
flciency in the proof would alone be fata
to the plaintiff S action.
Motion sustained; verdict set aside.