Bennett v. Concord Woodworking Co.
| Decision Date | 03 December 1907 |
| Citation | 74 N.H. 400,68 A. 460 |
| Parties | BENNETT v. CONCORD WOODWORKING CO. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Superior Court, Merrimack County; Wallace, Judge.
Action by James H. Bennett against the Concord Woodworking Company. Verdict for plaintiff, and case transferred from the superior court on defendants' exceptions to the denial of motions for a nonsuit and the direction of a verdict. Exceptions overruled.
While the plaintiff was working at a bench saw in the defendants' factory, a piece of wood called a "core" dropped through a hole in the floor of the room above the one in which he worked, fell upon a moving pulley, and was projected by the pulley against his eye, causing the injury complained of.
Martin & Howe, for plaintiff. Burnham, Brown, Jones & Warren, for defendants.
It is the master's duty to use ordinary care to notify his servants of all the dangers peculiar to his premises, of which he has knowledge and they are ignorant; and they assume the risk of those which they know are incident to the condition of the premises. 1 Labatt, M. & S. §§ 54-66. The test, therefore, to determine whether the master is responsible for an injury caused by the condition of his premises is to inquire (1) whether the servants appreciated the risk incident to that condition; (2) if they did not, whether he appreciated it; (3) if he did appreciate the condition, whether it was abnormal, that is, such a condition as a man of average prudence would not suffer to exist; and (4) if the condition was abnormal, whether he used ordinary care to notify his servants of the dangers incident thereto. Wood, M. & S. §§ 414, 415. The condition of the defendants' premises of which the plaintiff complains is that there was nothing to prevent cores from rolling into the hole in the floor, that the machine which made them was so close to the hole that cores were liable to roll into it, and that the hole was so located with reference to the machinery in the room below that cores rolling into it were liable to fall on a pulley and be projected toward the saw at which the plaintiff worked. The defendants admit that it can he found from the evidence that this was an abnormal condition, and that they failed to notify the plaintiff of the dangers incident thereto, but they contend that the evidence does not warrant a finding either that they did, or that the plaintiff did not, appreciate the risk. Since the plaintiff must establish both of these propositions in order to charge the defendants with responsibility for his injury, he cannot recover, unless it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kambour v. Boston & M. R. R.
...are concerned, is to notify them of the dangers of the service of which he does and they do not know (Bennett v. Woodworking Co., 74 N. H. 400, 68 Atl. 460), or whether, as the defendants contend, it is because these facts operate to relieve the master from a consequence that would otherwis......
-
Harlow v. Lac Lair
...A. 40; O'Hare v. Cocheco Company, 71 N. H. 105, 51 A. 257, 93 Am. St. Rep. 499; Hanley v. Railway Company, 62 N. H. 274; Bennett v. Company, 74 N. H. 400, 68 A. 460. In Massachusetts, since Hill v. Railway, supra, was decided, it has many times been held that parties were bound by their own......
-
Kfsuger v. Exeter Mfg. Co.
...realization that any loose object coming in contact with the spokes of the pulley might fly in any direction. See Bennett v. Concord Woodworking Co., 74 N. H. 400, 68 A. 460. But this general comprehension of the so-called "spoke peril" is not decisive of the plaintiff's case. If his injuri......
-
Kindellan v. Mt. Washington Ry. Co.
...N. H. 453, 75 Atl. 877; Deschene v. Company, 75 N. H. 363, 74 Atl. 1050; Kelland v. Company, 75 N. H. 168, 71 Atl. 947; Bennett v. Company, 74 N. H. 400, 68 Atl. 460. It matters little which is the correct statement of the legal principle—whether it is based on assumption of risk or absence......