p. 640Laura E. Owens, by Guardian, Resp’t, v. John H. Ernst et al., App’lts.(City Court of Brooklyn, General Term,,Filed December 27, 1892.)Headnote
Master and servant—Negligence.Plaintiff had been employed for about two weeks in receiving clothes from an ironing machine, when she was required by the foreman to smooth' out the wrinkles that came in the roller covering. He showed her how to do it by pressing his fingers bn the roller while at full speed, although he testified that he knew that no one should be instructed to smooth the wrinkles while the roller was in motion. Upon plaintiff’s attempting to do as she was directed her fingers were drawn in the machine; and injured. Held, that a motion to dismiss was properly denied.
Appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upori verdict for $2,500.
Thomas S. Pearsall, for resp’t; C. C. Nadal, for app’lts.
In the defendant’s laundry was a mangle or ironing machine run by steam. The mangle consists of a system of small rollers covered with muslin, coming in qontact with a large iron heated cylinder. The clothes are fed in front of the machine, passing between these small rollers and cylinder which dries and irons the clothes. - The plaintiff, a girl of fifteen years, was employed by defendants, and was engaged, for the two weeks preceding the date of the accident, in receiving the clothes as they passed out of the machine ironed. On the day of the accident, she was told by the foreman in charge of the business that she must smooth out any wrinkles that came in the muslin covering of the rollers. She told him she could not do it as she did not-know how, when he informed her that, if she did not, he would
p. 641get some one who could, and proceeded to show her how to do it, viz, he smoothed the wrinkle out by pressing his fingers over the wrinkled roller while it was moving at the usual speed. This, she testifies, was the only instruction given her. The testimony shows that by a combination of starch, heat and dampness, there was a strong tendency for the fingers to stick to the rollers, and to be drawn in between the rollers and the hot cylinder. This foreman says he knew it was dangerous for anyone to put the hand on the moving roller, as it would go in and stick against the cylinder, and that no one should be instructed to smooth the wrinkles while the roller was in motion. This plaintiff says the foreman not only failed to give her the proper instructions but actually gave her the wrong instructions, and in her first effort to follow his command and erroneous instructions, her fingers stuck to the rollers, and were drawn in upon the hot cylinder, and were so lacerated that amputation thereof became necessary. The jury believed her story and gave her á verdict for $2,500.
We think the trial court properly denied the motion to dismiss the complaint. Shearman & Redfield on Negligence, 4th ed., vol. 1, § 203 ; Healey v. Hart Bagging Co., 39 St. Rep., 122 ; Ryan v. H. W. Johns Mfg. Co., 46 id., 305 ; Grizzle v. Frost, 3 Fost. & Fin., 623.
We have carefully examined the testimony in this case, and do not think the verdict is against the weight of evidence, and further, we do not think that error can be predicated upon the other exceptions called to our attention by appellant’s counsel
Judgment and order must be affirmed, with costs.
Clement, Ch. J., concurs.