155 Mass. 368 (1892), Anderson v. Clark

Citation:155 Mass. 368, 29 N.E. 589
Opinion Judge:LATHROP, J.
Party Name:ANDERSON v. CLARK.
Attorney:[29 N.E. 583] J.M. Browne and A.H. Russell, for plaintiff. Bartlett, Gage & Anderson, for defendant.
Case Date:January 08, 1892
Court:Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 368

155 Mass. 368 (1892)

29 N.E. 589

ANDERSON

v.

CLARK.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

January 8, 1892

COUNSEL

[29 N.E. 583] J.M. Browne and A.H. Russell, for plaintiff.

Bartlett, Gage & Anderson, for defendant.

OPINION

LATHROP, J.

There was evidence tending to show that the plaintiff, a seaman on a fishing schooner owned by the defendant,

Page 369

was injured under the following circumstances: While the vessel was at anchor, in a heavy sea, it became necessary to pay out the cable, and, while this was being done, the cable slipped between the end of the windlass and the windlass bitts, and became fast. To ease the strain on the cable, the master took a rope, called the "foreboom guy," which had an iron hook on one end, made a hitch with one end of the rope around the cable about 12 feet from the windlass, and passed the other end under and around the windlass head. Thereupon the iron hook straightened out, struck the plaintiff in his face, and severely injured him. The cable was 81/2 inches in circumference, and the rope was about 3 inches in circumference. The second count of the declaration alleges that the defendant negligently failed to provide proper ropes, and a suitable windlass and gearing and machinery on the vessel, to be used for the purpose of managing and securing the anchor and cable attached thereto; that, by reason of the defective windlass and machinery, the cable slipped from the windlass, and became fast; and that the plaintiff was injured by being struck in the face by the hook attached to the foreboom guy, while he assisted in releasing the cable. On this [29 N.E. 590] evidence the jury were instructed that this count raised the question of the owner's negligence in failing to provide proper ropes and a suitable windlass and gearing and machinery for the purpose of managing and securing the anchor and the cable attached thereto; that it was not a question of due care on the part of the plaintiff, but was a question of contract; that, if he entered that employment, he took the risks of the business; that, if he knew that the windlass was so constructed "that the cable would go down there, knew all about it, and knew all about the ropes that were provided, then he took the risks of the business in that way;" that he could not claim of the defendant damages by reason of those defects in the appliances which he...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP