Quinn v. Elec. Laundry Co.

This is an action for damages by a young woman, employed by defendant corporation, who was severely injured while operating a mangle in defendant’s laundry. Judgment for twenty-five hundred dollars was given in favor of plaintiff. From the judgment and from the order denying a new trial this appeal is prosecuted.

It is alleged in the complaint that plaintiff, who was about nineteen years of age, was wholly unfamiliar with the operation of machinery; that she had been engaged by defendant as a “shaker out,” and that as such she was required to shake garments and prepare them for the mangling machine; that after working for some time in the capacity in which she was hired, plaintiff was ordered by defendant to work at the mangle; that she knew nothing of the perils attending - such work; that defendant did not warn her of the dangerous char

The front of the machine where the young woman was working at the time of the accident was provided with a long piece of curved brass over which the clothes were passed in “feeding” them into the mangle. There was some evidence that some screws were out of one end of this appliance, and in one part of her testimony plaintiff said this attachment “kept coming up and down all the time and it must have got caught in the machine and with that it drew my hand right in the mangle.” On cross-examination she testified that she could not tell whether this brass contrivance moved very much or not, but that it had moved considerably when she was at work a short time before. In addition to the brass attachment mentioned there was an adjustable guard regulating the size

Appellant contends that the evidence wholly fails to prove negligence on the part of defendant because the condition of the curved brass attachment was not shown to have contributed to the accident; because the adjustment of the height of the guard is not the duty of the defendant but the operator at the machine; and because, according to the allegations and proof, no guard will insure absolute safety. We think the evidence is insufficient to show that the condition of the curved brass appliance contributed to the injury, but we cannot agree with the conclusion that the machine, being dangerous with or without guards, the manner of the adjustment of the guard could not, in any event, be material to the determination of the question whether or not defendant was negligent. If it was the duty of defendant to keep this guard in proper position in order that the danger might not be obviated entirely but materially lessened, then the failure to perform such duty would be as reprehensible as the neglect with reference to some safety appliance which might be attached to a piece of mechanism in such manner as to exclude all danger of accident. It is certain that one’s fingers would pass more easily through a space one inch wide than through an aperture but one fourth of an inch in width. But appellant maintains that the adjustment of this guard was not a duty devolving upon the owner

It appears from the testimony that the sole duty of the girls working at the mangle was the proper introduction of clothes into the machine. They had nothing to do with the adjustment, except to report when there was necessity for raisihg or lowering the guard. This ease comes within the rule stated in Skelton v. Pacific Lumber Co., 140 Cal. 511 , [ 74 Pac. 14 ), where this language was used: “The duties which a master owes to his servants, and which duties he must perform, are to furnish suitable machinery and appliances with which the service is to be performed, to keep them in order and repair, to exercise ordinary care in the selection and retention of sufficient and competent servants, and generally to make such provision for the safety of employees as will reasonably protect them against the dangers incident to their employment; and if the act be one which it was the duty of the employer to perform, and one of the servants negligently performs it to the injury of another servant in the same common employment, then the offending servant in the performance of this duty acts as tlje representative or agent of his employer, and the employer is responsible.”

It is to be remembered that the plaintiff was a girl about eighteen years of age who kneiv nothing of machinery. She had been employed in the laundry less than three months. For seven or eight weeks of that time she had been engaged in shaking out clothes and for about two weekg in catching

I think that this case, from the youth and inexperience of plaintiff, the dangerous character of the mechanism whereby she was injured and the manner in which Miss Quinn was put to work comes clearly within the rule announced in Verdelli v. Gray’s Harbor etc. Co., 115 Cal. 523 , [ 47 Pac. 365 , 778], where, quoting from Ingerman v. Moore, 90 Cal. 410 , [ 25 Am. St. Rep. 138 , 27 Pac. 306 ], this court says: “But, on the other hand, when one who is known to be an inexperienced person is put to work upon machinery which is dangerous to operate unless with care, and by one familiar with its structure, the employer is bound to give him such instructions as will cause him to fully understand and appreciate the danger attending the employment, and the necessity for care.” (See, also, Mullin v. California Horseshoe Co., 105 Cal. 77 , [ 38 Pac. 535 ]; Ryan v. Los Angeles etc. Co., 112 Cal. 244 , [ 44 Pac. 471 ]; Foley v. California Horseshoe Co., 115 Cal. 184 , [ 56 Am. St. Rep. 87 , 47 Pac. 42 ]; Jenson v. Will & Fink, 150 Cal. 398 , [ 89 Pac. 113 ].) In the case last cited the following language, thoroughly applicable here, is used: “In the case at bar the questions whether the plaintiff had knowledge and appreciation of the dangers were matters to be determined by the jury from all the facts in the case, taking into consideration the youth of plaintiff, his inexperience and the work to which he was assigned, the particular character of the dangers attending it, and the failure of defendant to give him any warnings or instructions concerning them. If, therefore, it be conceded that plaintiff had knowledge of the dangers, as appellant claims he had, it cannot be said that under the evidence the

We think that in the case at bar there was ample evidence to justify the submission of the question of negligence to the jury. Such question is peculiarly theirs to answer. (Buchel v. Gray Bros., 115 Cal. 421 , [ 47 Pac. 112 ].)

There is some conflict of authority in the various states with reference to cases of the kind here considered. It would not be profitable to review all of them here, but we do think it perhaps important to comment upon Burke v. Davis, 191 Mass. 20 , [ 114 Am. St. Rep. 591 , 76 N. E. 1039 ], for that is a case upon which appellant lays considerable emphasis. That case is easily distinguishable from this, because the plaintiff, as the court found “upon her own statement, was fully aware of the risk she ran in working upon this machine, and for that reason was reluctant to work upon it.” It is by no means the law in Massachusetts that an operator at a mangle is presumed knowingly to take all risks incident to that employment, for in Manning v. Excelsior Laundry Co., 189 Mass. 231 , [ 75 N. E. 254 ] (a case cited and distinguished in Burke v. Davis, 191 Mass. 20 , [ 114 Am. St. Rep. 591 , 76 N. E. 1039 ]), the rule with reference to an ignorant and uninstructed operative is thus given: “There is nothing to show that the machine was defective and the questions are whether the risk was an obvious one which the plaintiff in the first case assumed, and, if not, whether the defendant negligently failed to warn and instruct her regarding the danger; and that depends on whether it was a part of her duty, or whether she was warranted in understanding that it was a part of her duty to remove pieces which caught on the rollers. She must, of course, be held to have understood and appreciated those facts of common experience which a girl of her age would be naturally expected to have becomé familiar with. She must be held to have known, for instance, that if her hand came in contact with the cylinder, which she knew was hot, it would be likely to be burned. (Gaudet v. Stansfield, 182 Mass. 451 , [ 65 N.

The case nearest to this in its facts of any called to our attention is Stager v. Troy Laundry, first reported in 38 Or. 480 , [ 63 Pac. 645 ], and after reversal on account of an erroneous instruction and retrial, appearing again in 41 Or. 141 , [ 68 Pac. 405 ]. In the former report, after a review of the facts which are very similar to those presented by the record before us here, the supreme court of Oregon uses this language: “Under these conditions, we cannot say, as a matter of law, that she assumed the risk by accepting or continuing in the service, and the question was properly left to the jury for their determination.”

Appellant complains of this instruction: “A servant’s implied assumption of risks, which accompanies and is a part of a contract of hiring, is confined to that particular work and class of work for which he is employed; and if the master orders him to work temporarily in another department of the general business where the work is of such a different nature and character that it cannot be said to be within the scope of the employment, and where he is associated with a different class of employees, he will not, by obeying such orders, necessarily thereby assume the risks incident to the work; and in a case involving the principle here declared, it will not be held, as a matter of law, that the injured party assumed the risk,

Another contention is that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action because it lacks an allegation that defendant knew of the defect of which plaintiff complained. It is averred, however, that defendant operated the machine while it was insufficiently provided with guards. This is equivalent to an allegation of negligence. (Silveira v. Iverson, 125 Cal. 266 , [ 57 Pac. 996 ].)

We find no other matters in the record requiring special attention, and, for the reasons above set forth, the judgment and order are affirmed.

Henshaw, J., and Lorigan, J., concurred.

Hearing in Bank denied.