Butler v. Frazee
Headline: Court upheld judgment for a laundry employer, ruling an experienced worker assumed the obvious danger of a mangle, making it harder for employees to recover damages for visible machine hazards.
Holding:
- Means experienced workers may be barred from damages for obvious machine hazards.
- Employers need not pay damages when hazards are apparent and known to the worker.
- Keeps injury disputes focused on visible danger and worker experience at trial.
Summary
Background
A twenty-two-year-old woman worked as an operator in a steam laundry where she fed wet clothes into a large heated mangle. The machine had a visible steel cylinder and rollers that drew fabric inward; a painted steel finger guard sat about one and a half inches above the feed board. The feed board was loose and fabric sometimes dropped between it and the cylinder. The worker had prior mangle experience, received no warnings, and was injured when a tablecloth and her hand were drawn into the machine.
Reasoning
The Court considered whether the worker assumed the risk of her injury. It found the machine’s dangerous parts, their motion, and the spacing of the guard were constantly visible and unchanged during her employment. The Court noted she was mature, intelligent, and experienced, knew the machine’s operation, and had not complained about the loose feed board. Because these facts showed she understood and voluntarily accepted the obvious danger, the Court treated assumption of risk as a question of law and affirmed the judgment for the employer.
Real world impact
The decision bars recovery where a worker of full age and experience knowingly works with plainly visible machine hazards and accepts that risk. The ruling rests on the specific facts — visible machine parts, longstanding condition, and the worker’s experience — so different circumstances or hidden defects might lead to a different result.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?