Ronca v. Wendell & Evans Co.

the-ironing rollers. This was the usual course. The defendant adduced evidence to show that this first roller was “a guard,” so meshed that, if the fingers of the “feeder” (i. e., the person who placed on the table the napkin or other article to be ironed) by chance or by mishap came in contact with such roller, they were pinched as a warning, and if any substance of any thickness went under the said roller, the said roller was so meshed that it was thereby raised, and the cogs went out of mesh. The proof that this roller was “a guard” was given by Mr. Hopson, the general manager of the defendant, and by Mr. Blake, who had been a foreman for the defendant at the time of this casualty.

The learned counsel for the respondent argued that defendant’s contention that this roller was a “guard” was met completely by the fact that it revolved inwards from the “feeder.” Although this criticism is not conclusive, it should be considered. But defendant’s witness Martin, a worker in the laundry., in describing the machine, calls this roller a “little guide roller,” and in another part of her testimony describes it as “a guide roller.” And defendant’s manager, on cross-examination, was asked:

“Q. Isn’t the purpose of that roller to grip the napkin and pull it in? A. No. Q. What is the purpose of it? A. To guard the hand against going in there. Q. Why did it revolve? A. Why, to help the goods in. Q. To pull the goods in; isn’t that so? A. To help them in. Q. To pull them in? Á. No. Q. What do you mean when you say ‘to help them in’? A. When you push the goods under it, it carried them in; it didn’t pull it.”

Considering both the action and the relation of this first roller to the ironing rollers, it cannot be said that this description of it as a “guide roller” is a misnomer. Calling a part of machinery a “guard” does not make it one, nor does the fact that incidentally it might serve either to warn or to protect the servant against danger. The jury could have concluded that the roller was not a guard," but was a part of the machinery designed to carry in the napkin (or other article) to the ironing cylinders. The evidence is neither so clear nor so credible as to take the question-of proper guarding from the jury, or to disturb its verdict upon that question.

[2] The jury might have concluded that this roller was not a proper guard within the eye of the law; for there was proof that, despite it, the plaintiff’s hand, when at its usual work, was caught and held b&neath it and an ironing roller. Even Blake and Martin, witnesses for the defendant, so testify. There was no proof that no other kind of guard, nor any additional guard, was possible. On his cross-examinatian, Mr. Hopson did testify that it would not be “practicable” for a guard “to be placed immediately in front of the roller”; but that answer is not exhaustive of the question whether any other guard was practicable.

[3] The learned counsel for the appellant urges the novelty of the casualty; but, as the jury could have found that there was no guard at all within the contemplation of the law, this plea is not enough to absolve the defendant.

[4] We think that the verdict is excessive. The infant was a young woman, 15 years old at the time of the casualty, and was in receipt

of $4.50 a week. She has lost her left hand. We think that the verdict of $12,000 should be reduced to $9,000, and that the judgment, as so reduced, and the order, should be affirmed, but without the costs of this appeal. If the plaintiff does not accept the reduction within 20 days, a new trial should be granted; costs to abide the event. All concur.