Arkland v. Taber-prang Art Co.

• Decision Date: 20 October 1903
• Parties: ARKLAND v. TABER-PRANG ART CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

184 Mass. 243

68 N.E. 219

ARKLAND v. TABER-PRANG ART CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Hampden.

October 20, 1903

COUNSEL

Green & Bennett, for plaintiff.

Brooks & Hamilton, for defendant.

OPINION

MORTON, J.

This is an action for personal injuries--the loss of an arm--while in the defendant's employ. At the close of the plaintiff's evidence, the court directed a verdict for the defendant, and the case is here on exceptions to this ruling. Exceptions were also taken to the exclusion of certain questions, but they have not been pressed, and we therefore treat them as waived. We think that the ruling was right.

The plaintiff entered the defendant's employ on the morning of the day on which he was injured. He was set to work on a machine called a 'shaper,' shaping picture frames. This machine was situated near a band saw. He finished that job, and was then told by the foreman to make out some patterns on wood, and when he had marked out the required number, was directed by the foreman to take them to a Mr Sanderson, who was working at the band saw. He did so, and in some way, in laying them down on the table of the band saw his arm came in contact with the band saw, and he received the injury complained of. He was 27 years of age, and testified on direct examination that he 'had worked around wood-working machines, shapers, and so on,' and on cross-examination that he 'had worked about wood-working machines about six years in all.' He knew what a band saw was, though he had never worked on one, and was not familiar with them. When the plaintiff entered the defendant's employ, he assumed the obvious risks incident to it; and the danger of getting hurt if he came in contact with the band saw was one of them. The defendant owed him no duty to fence or guard the band saw, or to change its position with reference to that of the shaper on which he was set to work. Stuart v. West End Street Ry. Co., 163 Mass. 391, 40 N.E. 180; Hale v. Cheney, 159 Mass 268, 34 N.E. 255. The defendant had no reason to suppose that the plaintiff needed any warning or instruction in reference to the danger of injury from coming in contact with the band saw, and therefore was not negligent in failing to warn the plaintiff of the danger. For aught that appears, the plaintiff was at least of average intelligence, and, as he told the defendant's superintendent, had worked about wood-working machines, shapers, and so...