Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1909-11-05

acting under the direction OF fore
mai, in charge OF a room known as the
"wash room" was precipitatcd into
II vet containing hot pulp and WAGER
and vas burned and sea.ded, and died
ass the result sof his injuries
There We're certain machinery and
appliances in the mill among which
were four large wooden tanks or watts
close to each other. projecting about
three feet above the floor of the room
and covering the sF;tce between the
watts; on a level with their tops was
a metal platform without ratings,
and between the watts above them ana
the platform was rotary blow pipe
about three feet in diameter with The
nozzle curved in such way as to
empty its contents. consisting of lot
pulp, into each OF the vatS The noZ-
zle of the pipe was ordinarily moved by
rope attached and pulled by mon
from the floor of the room.
Under the direction of his superior
in charge of the room. the deceased
was attempting to turn it's nozzle by
pushing it on the platform. when it
suddenly discharged its contents and
becoming light gave way from the
force he was applying.
Two questions are raised by the ex-
ceptions to the ruling of the justice,
viz:
l. Allowing the amendments. We
think this was clearly within the dis
erection of the court.
2. Ruling that even if the authority
given to the foreman of the wash room
to call men from other rooms to as
SiSt, was limited to the pulling by
them on the rope, it must be brought
to the knowledge of the servant to
afford the defendant the benefit of
the limitation. This ruling is sustain
ed by the authorities.
Tile relation of master and servant
at the time of the action is not de-
MED. but the defendant contends that
there can be no recovery in the action
because it is not shown that the de-
ceased was in the exercise of reason
allie care. and because the risks of
the place were assumed by him as in
cident to the work.
The place to which he was ordered
was dangerous by reason of the small
size of the platform, its slippery con-
dition. and open watts being imme-
diately underneath. 1t was a custom
at the mill to borrow men from the
various rooms to assist in moving the
blow pipe
WaiczenkO was nineteen years old
and could not speak English. 1t is
shown by the weight of evidence that
he worked but two nights in the par
i-J,
sion for him to assist in moving the
pipe in the wash room, and that no
instructions had been given him with
reference to the pipe or the dangers
in moving it. The pipe occasionally
discharged it's contents of pulp sud-
denly, causing it to move quickly. 1t
was some times clogged and was then
moved by the men pushing with their
feet and by pulling on a rope.
The jury were fully instructed and
the conclusion reached by them must
have been that the conditions of the
place and the nature of the work done
We're dangerous and were not such
risks as the servant by law would be
presumed to assume. We think this
was justified by the evidence. He was
acting in obedience to the order of the
def ndant's foreman in charge of the
roo n, indicated by motioning and ac-
acts, and he had right to
rely upon the judgment of his super
Tor
The question of the servants con-
tributory negligence is involved some
what in the want of evidence showing
precisely how the accident happened.
hut the jury may have properly found
that the platform was slippery and
that the pipe moved suddenly the in
slant the deceased pushed or was III
the act of pushing with his foot, the
irregularity not being purely accidental
but Of usual occurrence.
AS bearing upon the claim that the
servants injury was solely the result
of the defendants negligence, we are
10 consider the evidence shows that
the place was dangerous to one I'M
familiar with it. The servant. when
called to assist. was not specially in
formed by the master of the conditions
which made it dangerous so as to give
MIN an opportunity to decide whether
he would assume the risks incident
to the place and work.
1t might be negligence either in not
doing what was practical and what
persons of ordinary precaution and
prudence would have done to render
it reasonably safe, or in not notifying
the servant of the dangers of which
he was unaware. The jury would be
justified in finding from the evidence
that neither of these duties was full
filled by the defendant toward the
plaintiffs intestate. 1t was for them
to decide and we should not disturb
the verdict.
Exceptions overruled.
Motion overruled.