Wheeler v. Wason Mfg. Co.

Citation135 Mass. 294
PartiesJames Wheeler v. Wason Manufacturing Company
Decision Date08 September 1883
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

Hampden. Tort, for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff while operating a circular saw in the defendant's employ. At the trial in the Superior Court before Knowlton, J., the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; and the defendant alleged exceptions. The facts appear in the opinion.

Exceptions overruled.

N. A Leonard & G. Wells, for the defendant.

G. M. Stearns, for the plaintiff.

C. Allen J. W. Allen J., absent.

OPINION

C. Allen J.

The presiding judge properly refused to rule that, upon all the evidence in the case, the jury would not be warranted in finding that the saw was in an unsafe or improper condition. The general duty of a master who employs a servant upon dangerous machinery, like a circular saw, to take all reasonable precautions for the safety of the servant, is not denied, or open to doubt. The question in this case was, whether the defendant had performed this duty. We cannot say, as matter of law, that the fact that such saws are ordinarily used without a guard, is conclusive to show that a saw without a guard is in a safe and proper condition for a workman as inexperienced as the plaintiff was. There was evidence tending to show that boards while being sawed sometimes spring back, and that it is customary to put the hand behind the saw to steady a board which becomes unsteady in sawing; so that, if the board springs back under such circumstances, it is liable to bring the hand of the workman directly upon the saw. This is the way in which the accident in the present case appears to have happened. There was evidence, not only on the part of the plaintiff, but on the part of the defendant, tending to show that it is practicable, in sawing boards into strips, and in some other kinds of work, to have a guard, of about the thickness of the saw, so placed and adjusted behind the saw as to furnish a great protection in case of the board jumping back when the hand is behind the saw. It was also admitted bye the defendant that there was a guard which belonged to this saw, as a part of the equipment of the machine, and which was kept about it, and which was used with the saw or not, as suited the convenience of the workmen; and there was evidence, apparently from the defendant's witnesses, that this guard was not high enough to afford any protection. However this may have been, the plaintiff testified, and his testimony on this point does not appear to have been contradicted, that there was no guard on the saw the day of the accident, and that he did not know that there was any belonging to it. There was also evidence tending to show that the plaintiff was inexperienced in the use of circular saws, and that, until that day, he had never undertaken to run one.

This case, therefore, is not like one where a practised and skilful workman is set to work upon machinery which, though dangerous in itself, and requiring the use of great care, he nevertheless thoroughly understands, and is willing to take the risk of using, in the condition in which he finds it. We cannot say that the jury would not be warranted in finding that the saw was in an unsafe and improper condition for the plaintiff, a beginner in the use of such machinery, to be put to work upon.

The refusal to rule that the defendant was not bound to provide a saw with any guard or protection rests upon the same ground. It was a question of fact what protection should be afforded, or whether any guard was reasonably necessary.

We also think that there was evidence which would warrant the jury in finding that there was danger in using the saw, which was known by the defendant and not known by the plaintiff, and which he might not have known, though in the exercise of ordinary care. The jury might well hold the defendant to be acquainted with the tendency of a board, when warped, to spring back during the operation of sawing; and also with the tendency, especially on the part of an inexperienced person to put his hand around behind the saw for the purpose of steadying the board, if running unsteadily. This is not a danger so obvious that an inexperienced workman, just beginning to learn how to use a circular saw in splitting boards, must be held necessarily to take cognizance of it. The general danger of contact with such a saw, when in motion, is plain; the particular danger to be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
72 cases
  • Maw v. Coast Lumber Co.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • February 24, 1911
    ... ... the facts, the question becomes purely a question of law ... (Wheeler v. O. R. & N. Co., 16 Idaho 375, 102 P. 347, ... approved and followed.) ... 8. The ... Texas etc. R. Co., 179 ... U.S. 658, 21 S.Ct. 275, 45 L.Ed. 361; O'Donnell v ... Am. Mfg. Co., 112 La. 720, 36 So. 661; Walker v ... Louis-Werner Saw Mill Co., 76 Ark. 436, 88 S.W ... for the jury." ( Wheeler v. Wason Mfg. Co., 135 ... Mass. 294; Producers Oil Co. v. Barnes (Tex. Civ.), ... 120 S.W. 1023; ... ...
  • Rase v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • March 5, 1909
    ...was reasonably necessary. Smith v. Baker & Sons, 1891 App. Cases, 325, at page 353; Lloyd v. Woolland Bros., 67 L. T. 73; Wheeler v. Wason Mfg. Co., 135 Mass. 296;Nadau v. White River Lumber Co., 76 Wis. 126,43 N. W. 1135,20 Am. St. Rep. 29; Anderson v. C. N. Nelson Lumber Co., 67 Minn. 79,......
  • Rase v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. Ste. M. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • March 5, 1909
    ...guard was reasonably necessary. Smith v. Baker, 1891 App. Cas. 325, at page 353; Lloyd v. Woolland Bros., 87 L. T. (N. S.) 73; Wheeler v. Wason, 135 Mass. 294, 296; Nadau v. White River, 76 Wis. 120, 126, 43 N. W. 1135, 20 Am. St. 29; v. C. N. Nelson Lumber Co., 67 Minn. 79, 81, 69 N. W. 63......
  • Anderson v. Pittsburgh Coal Co.
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • July 23, 1909
    ...And see Marshall, J., in Fleming v. Northern, 135 Wis. 157, 114 N. W. 841, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 701. And see Allen, C. J., in Wheeler v. Wason, 135 Mass. 294. This is certainly the rule in this state. Why is the duty to warn or instruct an inexperienced servant incapable of delegation, and t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT