Lamson v. American Axe & Tool Co.
Decision Date | 26 November 1900 |
Citation | 177 Mass. 144,58 N.E. 585 |
Parties | LAMSON v. AMERICAN AX & TOOL CO. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
E. H. Vaughan and F. P. Brady, for plaintiff.
Herbert Parker and Chas. C. Milton, for defendant.
This is an action for personal injuries caused by the fall of a hatchet from a rack in front of which it was the plaintiff's business to work at painting hatchets, and upon which the hatchets were to be placed to dry when painted. The plaintiff had been in the defendant's employment for many years. About a year before the accident new racks had been substituted for those previously in use, and it may be assumed that they were less safe, and were not proper, but were dangerous, on account of the liability of the hatchets to fall from the pegs upon the plaintiff when the racks were jarred by the motion of machinery near by. The plaintiff complained to the superintendent that the hatchets were more likely to drop off than when the old racks were in use, and that now they might fall upon him, which they could not have done from the old racks. He was answered, in substance, that he would have to use the racks or leave. The accident which he feared happened, and he brought this suit.
The plaintiff, on his own evidence, appreciated the danger more than any one else. He perfectly understood what was likely to happen. That likelihood did not depend upon the doing of some negligent act by people in another branch of employment, but solely on the permanent conditions of the racks and their surroundings and the plaintiff's continuing to work where he did. He complained, and was notified that he could go if he would not face the chance. He stayed. and took the risk. Carrigan v. Manufacturing Co., 170 Mass. 79, 81, 48 N.E. 1079. See Lewis v. Railroad Co., 153 Mass. 73, 77, 26 N.E. 431, 10 L. R. A. 513; Prentiss v. Manufacturing Co., 63 Mich. 478, 482, 30 N.W. 109. He did so none the less that the fear of losing his place was one of his motives. Leary v. Railroad Co., 139 Mass. 580, 587, 2 N.E. 115; Haley v. Case, 142 Mass. 316, 322, 7 N.E. 877; Wescott v. Railroad Co., 153 Mass. 460, 27 N.E. 10; 1 Bailey, Pers. Inj. §§ 880-885. Exceptions overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Maw v. Coast Lumber Co.
... ... ( Glenmont Lbr. Co. v. Roy, 126 F. 524, 61 C. C. A ... 506; Lamson v. Am. Axe & Tool Co., 177 Mass. 144, 83 ... Am. St. 267, 58 N.E. 585; Sullivan v. Electrical ... Mass. 294; Producers Oil Co. v. Barnes (Tex. Civ.), ... 120 S.W. 1023; German-American Lbr. Co. v. Brock (Fla.), ... The ... fact that the employee knew the conditions does ... ...
-
St. Louis Cordage Co. v. Miller
... ... says Mr. Justice Holmes, that fear of loss of his place ... induced him to stay. Lamson v. American Axe & Tool ... cO., 177 Mass. 144, 145, 58 N.E. 585, 83 Am.St.rep. 267 ... In the ... ...
-
Hietala v. Boston & A.R.R.
... ... bound trains ran, to get a pick which was in a tool box under ... the Second Street bridge. He walked in the middle of that ... track, for there were ... voluntarily to descend them without more light.’ See, ... also, Lamson v. American Axe & Tool Co., 177 Mass ... 144, 58 N.E. 585,83 Am.St.Rep. 267; Sullivan v. Ridgway ... ...
-
Buckalew v. Quincy, Omaha & Kansas City R. Co.
... ... 66; Condon v ... Railroad, 78 Mo. 574; Epperson v. Cable Co., ... 155 Mo. 372; Lamson v. Axe and Tool Co., 177 Mass. 144, 83 ... Am. St. 267, 58 N.E. 585 ... Platt ... ...