Curran v. Merchants' Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 23 February 1881
• Citation: 130 Mass. 374
• Parties: Stephen Curran v. Merchants' Manufacturing Company
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

130 Mass. 374

Stephen Curran v. Merchants' Manufacturing Company

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

February 23, 1881

Argued October 26, 1880

Bristol.

Exceptions overruled.

G Marston & J. W. Cummings, for the plaintiff, cited Coombs v. New Bedford Cordage Co. 102 Mass. 572; O'Connor v Adams, 120 Mass. 427.

A. J. Jennings, (J. M. Morton, Jr. with him,) for the defendant.

Soule J. Endicott & Field, JJ., absent.

OPINION

Soule, J.

The plaintiff in the first count of his declaration alleges that he was injured because the defendant, his employer, managed its machinery so negligently and carelessly that it was unsafe and dangerous. In the second count, he alleges that he was taken from the work for which he was employed, and set to cleaning out the gearing of a mule frame, which was an unusual employment for him, in which he was not instructed or skilled, and was to be attended to in an unusual place for him to work; that the gearing was still and in a safe condition for him to work on it, but while he was so at work it was carelessly and negligently set in motion by the defendant, and his hand was hurt; and that the defendant knowingly and carelessly employed unskillful, inexperienced and incompetent overseers or men in charge, by whose act the machinery was set in motion.

It is clear, therefore, that the action does not proceed on the ground that the machinery was unsuitable for the purpose for which it was intended, nor that it was not in good running order. The foundation of the action is negligence on the part of the defendant in managing its machinery, the only negligence specifically stated being in knowingly and carelessly employing unskillful and incompetent overseers or men in charge, by whose act the machinery was started.

It is familiar and well-settled law in this Commonwealth, that an employer is not liable to his servant for injuries caused by the negligence of a fellow-servant. The plaintiff was evidently aware of this principle, and inserted the allegation that the defendant knowingly and carelessly employed unskillful and incompetent overseers, in the hope of bringing his case within the other principle of law, which imposes on employers the duty to his servants not to employ as their fellow-servants persons who are known to be unskillful and incompetent, when such want of skill and ability may expose the servants to danger of bodily injury, which would not exist if...