Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1912-12-31
Androseoeein County.

Androscoggin County.
John Camrat pro ami vs.. Worumbo
Manufacturing Co Rescript, Haley. J.
This is an action on the case in winch
the plaintiff, 4 minor, seeks to recover
damages of the defendant Tor an INJURY
that the plaintiff claims he sustained by
res son of his hand being caught between
two rollers in a washing machine which
the plaintiff was assisting another work
man in preparing to start up. in the de-
PENDANTS factory. The accident took
place on the 18th day of December. 1911,
the plaintiff being at the time eighteen
country three years
When the plaintiff first came to this
country he worked one year and eight
months in the card room Of the defend
ant, putting wool In the carding machine.
He then went to Connecticut and worked
eight months in a scissors factory, sharp
ening scissors on a grind stone he then
worked six months in a plush mill at
Bridgeport; he then returned to Lisbon
Falls, Me- and went to work for the de-
PENDANT in the finishing room, and had
been so employed about two weeks at the
time of the accident.
He had. before the day of the accident,
been called by man operating the ma
chine known as the washer to assist
him IN what is known as the threading
machine, the plaintiff says three times,
the workman said four TO six times.
The machine upon which the plaintiff
was injured consisted, in part of two
sets of rollers. The work the plaintih
was engaged when injured. was IN plac-
ing a piece of cloth so it would roll
through a second set of rollers; the first
set of rollers were about half an men
apart when the cloth was put through,
which evidently, when the machine WIS
running, dropped together. \ few feet
from the first rollers was another set of
rollers about six or eight inches III dia-
meter, one being of copper and one COW
cred with hard rubber. The cloth run
from the first set of rollers to the second
set, and in order to thread it, or place
the cloth so that it would run through
the rollers 1t was necessary Tor the
workman to stand back of the second
rollers and hold the cloth close to the
rollers. when the machinery was started.
and allow the cloth 10 roll through, so
that il would be taken up over another
roller some few feet higher and ii was
while placing the cloth in position to run
through the second rollers that the acct
dent happened. The plaintiff testified the
first time he attempted to put the ctotn
through the second set of rollers he did
not succeed, and that another workman
finished the job, and the man operating
about his being stupid. The day of the &C
cident the plaintiff was called to assist the
workmen in placing the cloth between the
rollers, as above stated and told to step
in and put the cloth through the second
set of rollers; he did so by standing fac
ing the rollers and reaching over. Gliding
the cloth some five or six inches from the
end, with the ends close to the rollers.
The man operating the machine, in plain
sight of the plaintiff, asked him if ii Was
all right, and the plaintiff said all right,
whereupon the man operating the ma
chine turned on the power to start the
cloth through the rollers. According To
the testimony, the rollers turned about
one third round, and the plaintiffs hand
was drawn in between the rollers so that
his fingers were damned up TO the end
of his thumb, and he was obliged to have
one of his fingers amputated. The man
operating the machine testified that heI
ha when
cloth was being put through as ii was
at that time; that is he started the ma
chine enough to carry the cloth through
and then stopped it, that he saw the
plaintiffs fingers as they started to go
between the rollers and he stopped theI
machine and released the plaintiffs hand
There is no allegation in the deClafa-
tion, or evidence in the case. that the
washing machine was not suitable and
proper machine for the purpose for which
ii was used, or that the master did not
furnish a reasonably safe place to per-
form the work that the plaintiff was per-
forming, when injured: but the action is
sought to be maintained because the
plaintiff WAS a minor. and inexperienced
in the handling or working of such ma
chimes as the washing machine. and be
cause he was immature. and mex
danger of operating the machine, and
that the defendant did not perform its
duty. by properly instructing him of the
dangers OF operating washing machine,
warnings of the danger of operating the
machine.
Did the plaintiff know and appreciate
the danger of the work he was doing?
1t would seem that his experience in the
various mills for practically three years
must have taught him the danger OF
coming in contact with revolving wheels
or cylinders. He would have learned the
danger by observation, without instruc-
ton he would have learned it as the
child learns that fire will burn. that
fall will hurt, or that a sharp instrument
will cut He must have known that If
his fingers got against the cylinders,
they would be drawn in between them.
He was holding a piece of cloth against
the cylinders that it might be drawn in
between them. How could he help know
ing that. if his hand came Ill contact with
the cylinders, it would be drawn in as
the cloth was drawn inI IL is true thar
he testified he was frightened, but was
he? What was there TO brighten him.
He IVES usedeto machinery. He had seen
machine would be started but a few in
ches to allaw. the cloth to run through
the rolls. and that when il was caught
between the rells, he would take his hands
off tie cloth, and If he did, as he might
have done, there was no danger; and il
he was afraid that his hand would be
drawn in, although he need not have
been, he knew the danger. and by the
avoided it, y, hen his fellow servant
asked him if it was all right to start the
machinery. and he replied that It was, ne
knew the danger, and he knew that his
fellow servant was about to start the
machinery that turned the rollers, ana,
although he complains that the machine
started QUICKER than il had at other
times, his experience with machinery
should have told him that the speed of
the machine would necessarily be regu-
lated by the amount OF power that some
times ii might start faster than at other
times. but in applying power enough 10
turn the cylinder third round there
could be no appreciable difference in the
speed during the different times 1t was
started; and by the exercise Of due care.
by allowing the cloth to run through his
hands, he could have avoided all dang r;
No instruction Of the master was needed
to inform him of what he must have
known. II was not q concealed or an I'M
known danger. but one tlat was per-
fectly apparent
Nor do we think The plaintiffs age wa
such that he could not appreciate the
danger of his employ ment. y seems IN
credible that young man, Is years old,
with three years experience among ma
chinery. was not old enough to appre-