160 Mass. 234 (1893), Goodridge v. Washington Mills Co.

Citation:160 Mass. 234, 35 N.E. 484
Opinion Judge:MORTON, J.
Party Name:GOODRIDGE v. WASHINGTON MILLS CO.
Attorney:J.P. Sweeney and H.R. Dow, for plaintiff. Charles A. De Courcy and Walter Coulson, for defendant.
Case Date:November 29, 1893
Court:Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

Page 234

160 Mass. 234 (1893)

35 N.E. 484

GOODRIDGE

v.

WASHINGTON MILLS CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Essex.

November 29, 1893

[35 N.E. 484] The plaintiff testified that he was 27 years of age; that he entered the employ of the defendant March 15, 1892, as a loom fixer or sectionman in the weave room, having worked in other places as a loom fixer and machinist for 7 years. There were about 200 looms, of various makes, in the room, 17 of which were in the plaintiff's section. It was his duty to keep these 17 looms in good repair, so that the weavers could operate them, in proper condition, and put the warps on. Previous to the accident, he had noticed that the head-motion gearing on some of the old Crompton looms in the room was unprotected, but had never paid particular attention to it, for the reason that he thought it was none of his business. Of the 50 old Crompton looms in the room, he could not say how many had the head-motion gearing unprotected, but he knew that on some of them it was protected, and on some it was not. He thought that 4 or 5 of the 17 looms in his section were old Crompton looms. He did not remember whether these 4 or 5 were protected or not, but it was his impression that they were protected. On July 15, 1892, he had occasion to repair a loom in his section. On the other (southerly) side of the aisle, (which was about 31/2 feet wide between the feet of the looms, but 3 feet, or a little less, between the head-motion gears, which projected somewhat into the aisle,) there was one of the old Crompton looms, the gearing of which was unprotected. This was not in his section, but the looms adjoining it on the west and on the north were in his section, and in fixing these he had occasion to be around the loom referred to a great deal. It was not his duty to repair any loom not in his section, unless sent by the overseer; and he had never made any repairs on the loom on which he was injured, nor had his attention ever been particularly or especially attracted to it. The gearing on it was in plain sight, so that it was in the line of vision of one in looking up or down the aisle. The aisle was well lighted, and was used by people going up and down the room, sometimes with trucks. After repairing the loom in his section, plaintiff told the weaver to start it; and, in order to see how the loom ran, he stepped into the aisle, and stood in or near the middle of the aisle...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP