The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1902-06-03

Plaintiff was a doffer in the employ Of
the defendant corporation at woonsock-
ct and was at the time OF the accident
about twelve and half years of age.
Her duties required her amongst other
| things TO remove full bobbins from the
twisters and replace them with empty
ones. These bobbins frequently stuck and
required some sudden force to remove
them. On June 18th. 1900 while the plain
tiff was in the performance OF her work
she came across a bobbin that stuck and
in attempting to kick IL OF with her foot
she fell backward against a similar ma
chine or twister upon the other side OF
the alley.
There her hair became entangled in the
rolls and her scalp and ear. and part OF
her face were torn of. and she was very
seriously and permanently injured and
badly desflgured for life.
new trial was asked for by the de-
fendant on the grounds that the verdict
was against the evidence. that the plain
tiff was guilty OF contributory negli-
gence. thrat the court erred In admitting
| certain testimony relating to matters
not set forth in the plaintiffs declaration
Judge Tillinghast writes the opinion of
| the appellate division and In regard to
| the frst ground says: The evidence
| shows that the place where the plaintin
| had to perform her work was a narrow
| alley, about three feet wide, bordered on
both sides by a row Of twisters; that on
top of these twisters and close to the
alley were brass rolls OF smooth surface
about three inches In diameter and placed
horizontally one above the other. One
OF these rolls extended the whole length
Of the machine and was stationery, The
oil ST nf n
three inches apart. one from the other.
about three inches long and placed above
and along the entire length OF the long
roll. These small rolls were not hxed.
but could be easily moved up and down.
1T further appears from the evidence
that the floor of said alley was slippery
by reason of oil that was being constantly
projected from the machine. AS to the
frst ground for a new trial we are not
satisfied after a careful examination OF
the evidence submitted, that 1t Is well
taken"
"As to the second ground. the evidence
does not show that the platntin was
clearly guilty of contributory negligence
and hence that the court cannot interfere
with the verdict on that ground. The
law as to contributory negligence In this
state. as many times declared by their
court, is. that ordinarily the question as
to whether a plaintin In an action OF
this sort Is barred from recovering an ac-
count thereof, is a question for the jury,
and that the court can only interfere
with their findings upon that question
when IL is clear that such negligence ex-
listed that fair-m minded men could not
differ thereon"
Judge Tnlinghast also calls attention TO
the tender age of the plaintiff and says
that she could not exercise the same de-
gree OF care that a person Of more ma
ture years might Both the other grounds
are overruled
Attention Ia called by the Judge TO the
fact that the plaintiff tried fra ts pull
the bobbin of the twister. ana useus as
previously told to do, she kicked !. with
her foot.
Archambeault g. Gaulin were attorneys
for the plaintiff.