The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1905-06-17
$13,3O8
VERDICT
SUSTAINED

Judge Dubois today handed dawn the
opinion Of the appellate division of the
supreme court sustaining the jurys YER
dict Of slS.3Os for plantiff in the case
Of Luigi Petrarca VS.. Quidnick Manufac-
turing company. The plaintiff testified
that while a certain cotton carding ma
chine belonging to the defendant was
stopped and while it's driving belt was
I'm the proper place to keep IT stopped.
namely, upon the loose pulley. the plain
tiff attempted TO clean the machine I'm
the line OF employment. by removing
cotton waste from the bearings Of its
cylinder; that while so engaged. and
doing his work I'm a proper manner, the
machine started up OF itself without as
sistance from any one drawing his arms
into the machine and causing him severe
and permanent injury.
There were a number OF special find
ings asked from the jury. In the course
OF the opinion Judge Dubois says:
THE burden Of proof imposed upon the
plaintiff 10 satisfy the jury by a pre-
ponderance OF the evidence that the ac-
cident and injury through which he suf
fered We're results Of the negligence of
the defendant while he was in the exer-
dence that the machine started auto
matically without fault upon his part.
The court was not I'm error In permit
ting the witnesses Walker. Richardson
and McKeon TO testify concerning inspec-
ton Of the belt and pulley Of the machine.
The declaration sufficiently negatives in
spection I'm the allegation that the de-
fendant knew or by the experience Of
reasonable diligence might have known
Of the defects charged. II the defects ex
isted and the defendant inspected the
parts referred 10. IL knew Of them. To
say that the defects existed and the de-
fendant did not know Of them. when by
the exercise OF reasonable diligence IL
might have known OF them. is equivalent
to a statement that IT did not inspect
and opens the way TO introduce evidence
that the defendant neglected suitable
means Of ascertaining the same and
makes such evidence pertinent.
I'm the case at bar, II appears that the
machine. pulleys and belt had been in
continuous use for many years There
is necessarily more or less wear and tear
10 all parts Of such a machine; the belt
the tight pulley and the loose pulley are
not permanently durable but the wear
may be so gradual as to be almost i'm
perceptible; II is not the duty of the
servant to observe these changes until
they become so marked as 10 he obvious
to any careful man whose duty is not
to look for them but TO see them when
they thrust themselves upon his atten-
ton"
As 10 the claim set up by defendants
expert jerks that by blocking the ma
chine and putting the belt on the tight
pulley IL would take such a portion half
on the tight and half on the loose pulley
and remain these ready TO start the ma
chine when the obstruction was removed,
Judge Dubois says:
This was an abnormal position for the
belt 10 assume, and the discovery Of the
fact Itself was the result of very careful
inspection Of this machine and. presum-
ably. the first Of the kind that had ever
been thus made. for II belts habitually
worked in n manner n mechanical en-
gineer called as an expert would have
known Il without taking the time to make
what would have been unnecessary expert
ments Evidently II was not intended that
the belt should work In that way. No
sane mechanic ever invented a machine
TO be driven by belt and pulleys with the
that the belt should run upon
both pulleys at the same time. or play
fast and loose together"