Negligence, Employer's liability. In an action by a boy eighteen years of age employed in a laundry against his employer, for personal injuries from being hit by a piece of the rim of the revolving basket of an extractor which broke immediately after the plaintiff had started the machine, it appeared that the plaintiff had been working on the machine for nineteen days when the accident occurred, that he started the machine in the way in which he had been instructed to start it, and followed his instructions in other matters except possibly in the matter of packing the basket. The evidence of the plaintiff tended to show that the basket was packed properly while that of the defendant tended to show that it was overloaded and that this was the cause of the accident. Held, that the question whether the plaintiff was in the exercise of due care in packing the basket as he did and in failing to discover a defect in the machine, if it existed, was for the jury.
In an action by a boy eighteen years of age employed in a laundry against his employer, for personal injuries from being hit by a piece of the rim of the revolving basket of an extractor which broke immediately after the plaintiff had started the machine, it appeared that the extractor had an outer shell of cast iron, within which and of the same shape, with a space of three and a quarter inches between, was the revolving basket into which clothes were put to be dried, that it was expected that when the power was applied and the basket began to revolve it would vibrate more or less but that after a few revolutions it would cease to vibrate and revolve steadily, and that it was not expected or intended that the basket would "bang" against the shell. There was evidence tending to show that the basket had "banged" against the shell before the accident causing the rim to strike the shell and break, that this "banging" was due to the machine being out of order, and that the defendant knew of it or might by the exercise of reasonable care have known of it, that after the accident the basket was lying against the shell and that this ought not to have happened if the machine had been in order, also that the machine had been repaired before the accident and that in making the repairs one of the discs, which formed a part of the conical bearing for the vertical shaft on which the basket rested, had been left out. Held, that there was evidence for the jury of negligence on the part of the defendant.
MORTON, J.
This is an action of tort to recover for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff while at work upon a washing machine in the laundry connected with a hotel kept by the defendants. At the close of the evidence the judge ruled that there was no sufficient evidence of the defendants' negligence and ordered a verdict for the defendants. The case is here on exceptions by the plaintiff to this ruling and direction. The questions presented are the usual ones of the plaintiff's due care and the defendants' negligence.
The accident was caused by the breaking of the rim on a part of the machine called the basket. The plaintiff, who was about eighteen years old and had been working on the machine nineteen days when the accident occurred, testified that he started the machine by means of the lever used to shift the belt from the loose pulley to the tight pulley and about a minute after was hit by a piece of the rim which broke. He also testified that he had been instructed by one McGuire, who worked on the machine before he did, how to start and stop the machine and how to wash the clothes. There was nothing to show that these instructions were not sufficient or that they were not followed by the plaintiff except possibly in the matter of packing or loading the basket. As to that, testimony introduced by the plaintiff tended to show that it was properly packed or loaded, and testimony introduced by the defendants tended to show that it was overloaded and that the accident was caused thereby. Clearly the question was one for the jury as was also the question whether the plaintiff was or was not negligent in failing to discover the defect, if there was one, in the rim of the machine. We are of opinion that there was evidence for the jury on the question of the plaintiff's due care.
As to the defendants' negligence, there was, we think, evidence from which the jury could have found that the accident was caused by the machine's being out of order and that the defendants knew or in the exercise of due care should have known that it was out of order. The machine consisted of an outer shell within which was a basket into which the clothes that were being washed were put. The basket was fixed to a vertical shaft which was set in a bushing on a conical bearing and so adjusted that when power was applied the basket with its load would after a few revolutions and vibrations find its centre of gravity like a spinning top. There was testimony tending to show that, though it was expected that when the machine was started the basket would vibrate more or less, it was not expected or intended that it would "bang," as the witness described it, against the shell. There was also testimony tending to show that the basket had "banged" against the shell before the accident, which, as the jury could have found, caused the rim to strike the shell and break. And the jury could also have found that this "banging" was due to the machine's being out of order and that the defendants knew of it or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known of it. One witness testified that after the accident the basket was lying against the shell which another witness testified ought not to have happened if the machine had been in order. Another witness testified that the machine had been repaired before the accident, and that one of the discs which formed a part of the conical bearing for the shaft had been left out. It was for the jury to say what effect, if any, this had on the running of the machine. The defendant Lehan testified that the basket had "banged" against the shell before the accident, and that the rim had struck the shell, showing that he knew of the "banging," and it was for the jury to give such weight as they deemed proper to his explanations, and to decide whether the "banging" was or was not due to the machine's being out of order.
We are of opinion that there was evidence for the jury on the question of the defendants' negligence.
Exceptions sustained.