Crowley v. Pacific Mills

• Decision Date: 02 January 1889
• Citation: 148 Mass. 228,19 N.E. 344
• Parties: CROWLEY v. PACIFIC MILLS.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

148 Mass. 228

19 N.E. 344

CROWLEY

v.PACIFIC MILLS.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Essex.

January 2, 1889.

Exceptions from superior court, Essex county; CALEB BLODGETT, Judge.

Tort for personal injuries received by plaintiff, Jeremiah Crowley, who sues by his next friend, while in the employ of defendant corporation, through the alleged negligence of the defendant. The superior court ruled that the action could not be maintained, directed a verdict for defendant, and plaintiff filed exceptions.J.P. Sweeney, for plaintiff.

E.T. Burley and C.U. Bell, for defendant.

C. ALLEN, J.

The plaintiff's injury was received, according to his own testimony, in consequence of his putting his finger in between the roll and the cylinder, in order to smooth the cloth, just before it passed upon the cylinder, by taking out a “double edge,” as it was called, that being a term applied to the turning over or under of the edge of the cloth. The plaintiff was seventeen years old, and had been at work for about six months upon a machine substantially like that upon which he received the injury, except that the distance between the roll and the cylinder was less upon the latter machine; and he had been at work upon the latter machine nearly two weeks. The operation of the machine was simple. In view of the plaintiff's age and experience prior to the time of the accident, no duty then rested on the defendant to give him instruction in reference to the risk of possible injury. It could not be deemed necessary at that time to tell him that, if he should put his hand in between the cloth and the revolving cylinder, just at or just before the place where the cloth came in contact with the cylinder, there was danger that his hand would be caught. The omission to do this did not constitute negligence on the part of the defendant. Goodnow v. Walpole Emery Mills, 146 Mass. 261, 267, 15 N.E.Rep. 576; Ciriack v. Woolen Co., 146 Mass. 182, 15 N.E.Rep. 579.

Exceptions overruled.