The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1900-05-16

Following is the opinion of Supreme
Court Justice Fell in the case of Tessie
Higgins against T. J. Tanning & Co.,
of Carbondale, in which the appellate
court overturns the verdict by which
the plaintiff received $4,000 for injuries
received to her hand while working at
an ironing machine in the defendants
laundry.
She claimed that the machine was
defective, in that it Jared and jerked,
and that by one of these unexpected
jerks her hand, which was guiding a
napkin into the rolls, was caught by
and drawn into the rolls, squeezing it
fiat and causing it to be permanently
crippled. The defense was a denial of
any negligence.
Two grounds Of negligence are alleged: %
The failure Of the defendants TO instruct an in.
experienced servant in the use OF the machln.
cry; (2) Furnishing machinery which was un-
safe tecausc of being out of repair. Neither
allegation finds any substantial support in the
testimony offered by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff was Of full age. She had been
employed for several weeks in the defendants s
laundry, and had a general knowledge of the
machinery in use. She had worked for three or
four days at the mangle by which she was in.
jured, and knew all the dangers to which she
was exposed Her duty was TO spread out the
clothes to be ironcd and pass them along the
surface Of a small platform until they were
caught by the rollers of the mange. Before
she did any work she was shown by one of
the defendants how it should be done. He took
her to the manglc, spread out napkin and
passed it towards the rollers till it was caught
INSTRUCTION UNNECESSARY.
No further instruction than this would seem
to be necessary. In her testimony she did not
claim that further instruction could have been
given her, or that there was anything como. ed
with the work which she did not fully undor.
stand from the start
The work at which she was engaged was of
the simplest character, and the only danger
was in allowing her fingers TO come into CON
tact with the rollers and this danger she fully
knew. The only thing 10 bc guarded against
was lack Of care and attention on her part, aud
amount OF instruction would have made that
more obvious
The only testimony directed to show that the
machine was unsuitable unsafe was that at
times it jerked or Jared What caused The
jerking or jarring, and whether it was unusual
in such machines not shown.
1t may have been due to a defect in the ma
chine or have resulted from the clashing of the
cogs when the rollers were subjected TO a severe
pressure by passing between them thick pieces
of cloth. There was evidence that the mango
had any relation to the plaintiffs injury.
II she allowed her hand to be drawn in by
the napkin it was clearly her own fault, and
the jerking or stopping OF the machine was not
source of danger unless by its irregular mo.
ton the axis of revolution was changed and
they were brought nearer TO her hands but Of
this there is not the slightest evidence or even
suggestion.
The absence OF guard on the machine was
not defect There was no evidence tending TO
IL. q
safety, or that guards were in ordinary use On
such machines at the time Of the plaintiffs
injury As far as appears from the testimony
the machine was Of kind in ordinary use and
ordinary use was the test. 4 specific act of
negligence must he shown.
In the absence of proof of defects which added
to the danger of the operation Of the manglc,
the promise by one of the defendants to fix it
imposed no liability on them. As it did not
appear that the legal duty to furnish reason
ably safe machinery and appliances had been
violated, there was no ground on which they
could be held liable for the plaintiffs loss
The judgment is reversed.
MYERS VS.. LIFTS.
In the case of A. S. Myers against
William p, Lifts, which was also de-
cided by Justice Fell, the action of the
local court was affirmed in refusing TO
allow the plaintiff and his wife to tes-
tify, on the ground that their lips were
sealed by the death of the other party
TO the alleged parol lease, Mrs. Sarah
Vosburg.
Myers sued to recover $1,000 for farm
stock, produce and implements which
were sold by Lifts at auction under
power of attorney from Mrs. Vosburg.
on Mrs. Vosburg's farm, which Myers
claimed he was the rightful possessor
OF under lease, made with Mrs. Vos-
burg.
Before the trial Of the case came up,
Mrs. Vosburg died, and at the trial
Judge Archibald ruled that Myers could
not testify to the alleged parol lease,
and the husband being incompetent,
the wife also was incompetent.
Another assignment Of error, the re-
ferring to other excluded testimony,
was not considered by the Supreme
court because, in violation of the rules,
the plaintiff neglected to set out the
testimony given under the offer to
which the objection was made.