Jenkins v. Maginnis Cotton Mills

Citations

• 51 La. Ann. 1011
• 25 So. 643
• 1899 La. LEXIS 513

Syllabus

<p>Syllabus.</p> <p>•Damages are claimed by plaintiff on the ground of defendant’s negligence.</p> <p>Plaintiff, a card grinder, bad never before alone undertaken to remove flats on the endless chain of a carding machine. He was sent by the overseer to do this work, and was severely injured while at work.</p> <p>There were safe ways, two at least, of removing the flats. They were the usual ways followed in removing them. Plaintiff chose the third manner of removing these flats, a manner unusual and very hazardous, in view of the fact, that the day before the accident, he, under the orders of the overseer, had removed the back plate and had stripped a fast revolving cylinder of its covering.</p> <p>Plaintiff, having chosen the dangerous manner of removing the flats, under the circumstances, defendant is not responsible in damages.</p> <p>An employe of mature years employed in a line of work who had assisted in another line of work, and is removed from the regular line and set to work on the latter without the presence and direction as previously of the over-, seer, and is injured while at work because of the unusual manner followed by him in doing the work, is without right to damages.</p> <p>'The danger was not unknown to the employee.' It was plainly visible.</p> <p>While an employer is expected to provide a safe place for his workmen and safe machinery, the employee should not unnecessarily expose himself to a visible danger.</p> <p>The two cases cited by plaintiff- require that employers shall exercise due care, and they were held responsible, as it appeared that the employee had no previous knowledge or acquaintance with the defective machinery causing the accident.</p> <p>Lack of supervision of the factory (if there was such a lack) was not the proximate cause of the accident.</p>