Feely v. Pearson Cordage Co.

• Decision Date: 18 May 1894
• Citation: 161 Mass. 426,37 N.E. 368
• Parties: FEELY v. PEARSON CORDAGE CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

161 Mass. 426

37 N.E. 368

FEELY v. PEARSON CORDAGE CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 18, 1894

This is an action of tort for personal injuries, brought under the common law. The plaintiff was employed by the defendant on the basement floor of its factory. At one end of this basement was a tank or well, the bottom of which was two or three feet below the surface of the basement floor, into which the water formed by the condensation of steam in the engines ran by means of pipes along the basement floor from the engine to said tank. The well was within a few inches of full,--that is to say, the water came up to within a few inches of the floor level, most of the time,--and the overflow from the well ran off through pipes into the sewer. Plaintiff had his legs scalded, up to the knees, in the water of said well, by falling into it while getting some washers from a barrel near by.

COUNSEL

Elisha Greenhood, for plaintiff.

John Lowell, Jr., and Samuel H. Smith, for defendant.

OPINION

MORTON, J.

For most of the time during the four or five weeks that the plaintiff had been working for the defendant, he had known of the well. Sometimes the barrel from which he got the washers was nearer to, and sometimes further from, it. The defendant was under no obligation to the plaintiff to cover the well, or keep the floor dry. Murphy v. Rubber Co., 159 Mass. 266, 34 N.E. 268, and cases cited. The danger of slipping or of falling into the well was an obvious one, and the plaintiff must be held to have assumed the risk. It does not matter that he did not know the precise extent or character of the injury which he would sustain if he fell into the well. Such a test would introduce an impracticable element into the doctrine of assumption of the risk. It is enough that he knew that he might fall into the well, and continued at his employment without objection. He must be held to have assumed the risk of whatever injury he might receive by falling into the well. It is not necessary to consider whether the plaintiff was in the exercise of due care, or was acting within the scope of his employment. Exceptions sustained.