Anderson v. Duckworth
| Decision Date | 19 October 1894 |
| Citation | 38 N.E. 510,162 Mass. 251 |
| Parties | ANDERSON v. DUCKWORTH et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
D.E. Webster, for plaintiff.
J.B Carroll and W.H. McClintock, for defendants.
The work which the plaintiff was employed to do was to assemble revolvers; that is, he took the different parts after they were prepared, and put them together, and saw that they worked properly. It was no part of his duty to try them with explosives, or to work on loaded revolvers. There was obviously nothing dangerous in handling revolvers under such circumstances. After the revolvers were assembled, they were tested by one of the defendants, James Duckworth, by loading and firing them, and, if they worked all right, they were accepted, but if they did not they were returned to the assembler. There was evidence tending to show that Duckworth told the plaintiff when he first went to work that he would see that no unexploded cartridge was left in the magazines. On the day of the accident Duckworth, after testing one of the revolvers, handed it back to the plaintiff, telling him that it did not work right. While the plaintiff was engaged upon it, a cartridge which had been accidentally left by Duckworth in one of the chambers, exploded, and injured the plaintiff. The defendants contend that the plaintiff was bound, in the exercise of due care, to examine the revolver himself, and was not justified in relying wholly upon the examination of Duckworth, especially in view of the fact which the plaintiff knew, that Duckworth once before had left an unexploded cartridge in a revolver, which he handed back to the plaintiff after testing it. But due care depends on what is reasonable under the circumstances, and is generally a question of fact for the jury. It cannot be said, we think as matter of law, that the probability that Duckworth would leave an unexploded cartridge in one of the chambers was so great as to require the plaintiff, in the exercise of due care, to examine them himself, or that by continuing in the defendants' employment after finding an unexploded cartridge in a revolver handed to him by defendant James after testing it he thereby assumed the risk from such unexploded cartridges as might be accidentally left in revolvers by said James. He had a right to rely to some extent upon Duckworth's assurance that he would leave no unexploded cartridge in the revolvers. How far it was reasonable for him to do so under the circumstances was a question for the jury. The defendant also contends that the manner in which the accident occurred shows that the plaintiff was careless, and that he should have used the safety catch. These questions were also for the jury. We do not think...
To continue reading
Request your trial