Mercantile Laundry Co. v. Kearney

Fowler, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is another of the numerous actions brought to recover damages resulting from personal injury. The plaintiff, a boy eighteen years of age, was in the employ of the Mercantile Laundry Company of Baltimore City. He had been driving the company’s wagon for some months, when on December 17th, 1900, he was employed to run certain machines in the laundry called wringers or extractors, which were used for the purpose of wringing or drying out the clothes.

He had been engaged in this occupation four or five days when the accident happened. It is unnecessary to minutely describe the machinery which was being operated by the plaintiff. It is sufficient to say for the present purpose that the wringers after having been filled ■ with the wet clothing, were rapidly revolved by steam power— in order to expel the water from them. While the wringer was thus in motion, and the plaintiff was standing in the proper and usual position to do his work, at the side of the machine, the accident happened.

He thus describes it: “I was standing at the side of the wringer and I had reached my hand up to give this wringer more steam at the valve ; I was standing between the wall and the wringer almost, this hand- ¹⁷ near the wringer, and I just turned to give it more steam and a sheet flew out and wrapped around me.” His arm was torn off about two inches below, and broken in three places above, the elbow. In reply to the question if he could tell how the accident happened he replied, “All I can tell is, I was standing there and a sheet flew out and caught my wrist and pulled me in.” The single question presented by this appeal is whether the Court below erred in refusing to take the case from the jury. The principles applicable here are the same which we applied in the case of Chas. W. R. Yentsch, Infant, v. The Chloride of Silver Dry Cell Battery Co., 96 Md. 679 , decided at this term and are so well settled that they do not admit of discussion.

We may start with the statement that it is a well-settled rule ‘ ‘ that if the operation of a machine involves danger to an inexperienced person both justice and humanity impose upon the employer, when directing a youth without previous knowledge of the machine to work upon it, the duty of giving him such warning or instruction as would enable him to operate it safely by the use of that degree of care which might reasonably be expected of him.” Nat. Enam. Co. v. Brady, 93 Md. 650 ; Levy v. Clark, 90 Md. 146 . And it is equally well settled that it was the duty of the defendant to furnish sufficient light to enable the employees to perform their labor with reasonable safety, while exercising due care