Wheeler v. Oak Harbor Head Lining & Hoop Co.

Citations

• 126 F. 348
• 14 Ohio F. Dec. 248
• 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4322

Syllabus

<p>L Master and Servant — Injuries to Servant — Negligence of Master-Pleading.</p> <p>Bates’ Ann. St. §§ 4364-89c, 4364-69, require factory owners to box all shafting operating near passageways, and to provide suitable seats for female employés when not necessarily engaged in active duties, etc. Plaintiff, who was employed in a factory, was injured by her skirts becoming entangled with an unboxed shaft projecting outside of the building near a window customarily used by the employés as a passageway and for a seat. Held, that a petition alleging such facts, and that defendant well knew that the window was customarily used as a passageway, and the dangerous character of the shaft, and that it negligently omitted to warn plaintiff of the danger from the shaft, and omitted to provide seats for employés, and that the custom of the employés to use the window as a seat was known to defendant, and that plaintiff did not know or apprehend any danger from the shaft by which she was injured, sufficiently stated a cause of action for defendant’s negligence.</p> <p>9. Same — Assumption of Risk.</p> <p>Where plaintiff in an action for injuries to a servant by a revolving shaft alleged that she was a young woman, unacquainted with machínery or the dangers to be apprehended therefrom to persons employed in the vicinity of the shaft, and that defendant had not warned plaintiff of the danger, the petition sufficiently negatived the defense of assumption of risk.</p> <p>S. Same — Contributory Negligence.</p> <p>Where plaintiff was injured by her skirts becoming caught on a rapidly revolving shaft under a window in which she was seated, and, in a petition to recover damages from such injuries, she alleged that she was unacquainted with the danger, and that it had been customary for her. and other employés, while resting, with defendant’s knowledge, to sit in the window, and that defendant had given no warning against the practice, the petition was not demurrable on the ground that the