Blanchette v. Border City Manuf'g Co.

• Decision Date: 29 October 1886
• Citation: 8 N.E. 430,143 Mass. 21
• Parties: BLANCHETTE, Adm'x, v. BORDER CITY MANUF'G CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

143 Mass. 21

8 N.E. 430

BLANCHETTE, Adm'x,

v.BORDER CITY MANUF'G CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Bristol.

October 29, 1886.

This was an action of tort, to recover damages for personal injuries to the plaintiff's intestate, resulting in his death. The defendant is a corporation engaged in the manufacture of cotton goods, at Fall River, in said county. The plaintiff's intestate was an employe in the defendant's mill, in a room called the “spool-room,” and was engaged in making starch or size; and while so employed, on July 24, 1882, he was so injured from starch or sizing from one of the boilers in which it was being made, that he died 11 days afterwards from the injuries received.

At the trial in the superior court, before THOMPSON, J., it appeared that the sizing in the boilers was heated and cooked by steam, and that steam was let on and off by means of a valve, and it was a part of the work of the plaintiff's intestate to let the steam on and off by that means, when making sizing or starch; and in doing this, he had to go up a pair of steps which led to the platform on which the boilers stood. Aside from a description of the boilers as to their general appearance and construction, there was no other evidence as to their construction, the materials of which they were made, their fitness or unfitness for the purpose for which they were used. The sizing or steam from one of the boilers went as high as the ceiling of the room, and over and upon the plaintiff's intestate, and he received the injury therefrom to recover for which this suit was brought. The plaintiff's intestate was last seen before the injury upon the platform on which the boilers were standing. The sizing was seen to fly up from the top of the boiler, a scream was heard, and the deceased was seen shortly afterwards on the floor of the room, badly scalded. There was no other evidence except as given above. The court ruled, against the objection of the plaintiff, that, upon the evidence, she was not entitled to recover, directed a verdict for the defendant, and at the plaintiff's request, reported the case for the determination of the full court.

E.L. Barney, for plaintiff.

It was the defendant's duty and obligation to plaintiff's intestate to furnish proper, suitable, and sufficient boilers, pipes, and machinery in their mill for him to work upon with safety; Spicer v. So. Boston Iron Co., 138 Mass. 426;Cayzer v. Taylor, 10 Gray, 274, and cases cited in margin. It was not a question of sufficiency of evidence, Forsyth v. Hooper, 11 Allen, 419;Heywood v. Stiles, 124 Mass. 275. There was evidence of a defect. The fact that a railroad car runs off the track is prima facie evidence of negligence in the railroad. Le Barron v. East Boston Ferry, 11 Allen, 312; Carpue v. London, etc., R.R., 5 Q.B. 746; Feital v. Middlesex R.R., 109 Mass. 405; Christie v. Criggs, 2 Camp. 79; Dawson v. Manchester, etc., 5 L.T.Rep.(N.S.) 682. See Stokes v. Saltonstall, 13 Pet. 181;Ware v. Gay, 11 Pick. 106.

Braley & Swift, for defendant.

On the evidence, this case falls within Crafts v. Boston, 109 Mass. 519, 521;Hinckley v. Cape Cod R.R., 120 Mass. 257, 262. The evidence fails to show negligence on the part of the defendant. The fact that an accident occurred, raises no presumption of negligence. Curtis v. Roch. & Syr.R.R., 18 N.Y. 534. If the plaintiff claims that there was evidence from which the jury would be warranted in finding that the boiler burst or...