Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1909-12-08
RESCR|PTS.
Law Court Rules in Cum
berIand Suits,
Motion for New Trial Sustain.
ed in Bourgeois Case.
New Trial Denied In Action Against
Portland Railroad Co.

DIV
Elw court Monday in two Cumberland
county cases. A rescript drawn by
Associate Justice Leslie c. Cornish OF
Augusta, suStans The defendants mo-
ton for a new trial in the case of
Bourgeois VS.. Skllings, which is a per-,
sonal damage action in which the
plaintiff, girl between 16 and II years
old was injured while operating a
steam mangle in the laundry of the
defendant. The rescript holds that the
plaintiff failed to Show due care Oh her
part and that she must be considered
to have assumed whatever risk there
was. A rescript drawn by Associate
Justice Albert NJ. Spear of Gardiner
overrulcs the motion for new trial
and exceptions of the defendant in the
Co., which IS personal damage action
to recover for injuries received by the
plaintiff through the alleged negligence
of the defendant in operating one of it's
cars so that it collided with the plain
tiff's team. The defendants exceptions
related to the exclusion of evidence Of
fered to show that at different times
during the following summer the de-
PENDANT was intoxicated. The rescripts
are as follows:
Cumberland County.
Mary A. Bourgeois, pro ami, VS.. George
J. Skillings. Rescript Cornish, j.
The plaintiff, a girl between 16 and
II years Old, was seriously injured
While operating a steam mangle in the
laundry of the defendant. She began
work in August 1906, and was fully in
structed as to the proper manner of
operating the machine and warned as
to the dangers ordinarily incident
thereto.
This mangle consisted of a padded
roll or cylinder, about seven or eight
feet long, and three feet in diameter,
propelled by electric power and maxi
ing about four revolutions a minute.
On the top. and a little towards the
back was an iron shoe, steam heated
and so adjusted as to press close upon
the revolving rcll. The clothes while
damp We're placed on the roll about
breast high, We're carried by it jim it's
revolution beneath the heated shoe
and so We're ironed and dried.
In front of the edge of the shoe and
close to it was a brass rod or guard,
about one aud one half inches in diam
eter. raised one inch above the roll
and extending its entire length. This
was intended to warn the operator in
case her fingers approached too near
the shoe. Upon this machine, so con.
structod, the plaintiff worked from
August 1906 until early in February
1907 when change was made because
the exposed slice failed to retain its
heat. To remedy this a hood, which
had come with the machine when
bought five years before but had new
or been used, was placed over the
shoe, and this necesSitatd the removal
of the guard rod. but there was a roll
on the edge of the hood that occupied
practically the same position as the
rod. except that it was one quarter or
one half of an inch higher from the
padded roll allowing more room for
the fingers to pass beneath it. The
plaintiffs attention was called to this
change w the defendant although he
does not claim to have warned her
against any increased danger
She continued to work with the
changed machine until March 1S pc
rio1 of about >iX weeks when she met
with this accident which is the basis
Of this suit.
The plaintif's legal claim is that the
removal of the guard rod made the
machine more dangerous, that the
plaintiff did not understand and appre-
cia,e the decreased risk, and that the
defendant failed t" properly warn or
instruct her in regard to it and on
these claims the plaintiff recovered
verdict from the jury. The evidence,
however. warrants neither the legal
illusions nor the verdict
1t is matter of great doubt wheth-
or the machine was in fact more dan
gerous with the hood than with the
guard which would lift up and turn
backward if there were pressure from
beneath. The absence Of the guard
made the danger of the operators
hands being pulled against the shoe a