Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1908-10-13
A COTTON MILL CASE.
Rcscr'pt in Case Of David Lcbreque VS..
Hill Manufacturing Co.
Rescript, Whitehouse. ]


On the fourth day OF September
1906. the plaintiff was employed as an
operative in the picker room of the de-
PENDANTS cotton mill, and while SO en-
gagged he received a severe personal
injury causing fracture of his right
arm at three different points and re-
sulting in the amputation of the arm
near the shoulder. In suit brought
against the Company to recover
damages for the injury, the plaintiff
commended that it was caused by the
breaking of a defective leather belt
connecting two of the pulleys of the
machine called an Opener which he
was employed to tend and operate, and
that there was failure of duty on the
part of the Company towards him in
allowing a defective belt to be used
and thus exposing him to unnecessary
peril while he was himself in the
exercise of ordinary care and without
knowledge of the unsuitable condition.
of the belt The jury returned a
verdict in favor Of the plaintiff for
S3083S1. and the case comes to the
law court on a motion to set aside this
verdict as against the evidence.
~
this state of facts are Well settled and
familiar. They have been so repeat
edly stated and critically distinguished
and applied in the recent decisions of
this court, that no elaborate discussion.
of them is here required. The relation
of master and servant existed between
the plaintiff and defendant 1t was
the primary duty of the defendant to
use all ordinary care to provide a
reasonably safe place in which the
plaintiff was required to work, and to
provide and maintain reasonably safe
and suitable machinery for him to
operate. so that by the exercise of
ordinary care on his part, the plaintiff
could perform the service required OF
him without liability to other injuries
than those resulting from simple and
unaVoidab BILE accidents.
That the belt in question in the case
at bar was in fact defective and OF in
sufficient strength to transmit the
power and maintain the velocity re-
quired of the feed pulley in the
machine operated by the plaintiff.
satisfactorily appears from the testi-
monv in the case considered in con-
nection with the appearance of the
belt itself which is exhibited in
evidence The jury 50 found, ana
there is d clear preponderance of evil
dence in support of Sheir finding upon
that proposition.
The jury also found that the DC
PENDANT failed to exercise due care
and vigilance in regard to the lESpec-
ton Of this belt, and neglected to pro
vide the machine with reaSonaoiH
safe and suitable belt. and 1t Is me
opinion of the court that this conciu-
sion cannot Justly be declared mani
festlv wrong. The testimony OF
Roa,l.hene himself who was charged
with the duty of the master to MAKE
the necessary inspection and repair I'll
the belts in the plaintiff's room, dlS-
| closes an unexplained neglect OF duty
| on his part to make proper inspection
and a manifest failure to appreciate
| the nature and extent of the RESPONSE
| bIity imposed upon him. lie eA-
| pressIv admits in his testimony that
| he made no inspection to discover de-
| fects.
This man had worked in picker
room twenty two years, and mad
served the plaintiffs room the last
| time for four consecutive years I'M
mediately preceding the accident
According to the plaintiffs testimony
the belt broke and was repaired by
| Reauchcnc only four of five days be-
| fore the last break. This is not denled
bv Baauchenc. He only states that
| he doesn't remember when he last re-
paired it. Beauchene then knew that
the belt was in use when ne LOOK
charge OF the room four years before
but did not know how much longer II
had been there. If he had then given
the belt such a careful examination as
his duty required him to give 1t, ana
compared the patent defects in the
other portions of it with the condition
ot the broken ends. he would doubtless
have condemned the belt as no longer
safe and suitable for use. The plain
tiff had only been there fourteen
months and had no knowledge of the
age OF the belt He had never been
charged with any responsibility IN the
iuspection of bets and never mad any
experience in testing or specially
observing the tensile strength OF
leather which had become cracked and
weakened by time and use. 1he sun
face cracks were obvious. but they
were not necessarily serious defects
The plaintiff was not sufficiently eH-
pert to distinguish at a glance. hafm-
loss surface cracks from the deStruc-
tive rents caused by great age ana
hard usage. He was justified in as
suming that the decision of the Dei'
fixed Beauchene. to continue TINS pen
in use after the repairs made by nm
four or five days before the accident
was sufficient guaranty OF It's
strength and fitness. He could prop
erly rely upon the presumption tha'
the duty of the master had beeh per-
formed.
Rut it is cortended in behalf of the
defendant. that the plantltfs account
of the manner in which his injuries
were received. is so improbable and Sc
discredited by the evidence. that Il
ought to he rejected as Incredible ah'
essentially untrue. 1t is argued tha'
the belt did not break in defective
or the weakest place. and that tlit
br. al,ing of the belt did not cause the
accident. 1t is suggested AS It more
pro}a bic theory of the plaintiff's IN
tt,,+ il, his haste remedy Iflt