Blanchette v. Border City Mfg. Co.
| Citation | 143 Mass. 21,8 N.E. 430 |
| Parties | BLANCHETTE, Adm'x v. BORDER CITY MANUF'G CO. |
| Decision Date | 29 October 1886 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
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 exploded, even that is not sufficient in itself to prove negligence. Toledo, W. & W. Ry. v. Moore, 77 Ill. 217; Flynn v. Beebe, 98 Mass. 575; Duffy v. Upton, 113 Mass. 544; Kendall v. Boston, 118 Mass. 234; Hutchinson v. Boston Gas-light Co., 122 Mass. 219. The presumption is that the master has fully discharged his duty, and neglect so to do must be proved. Hando v. London, etc., R.R., L.R. 2 Q.B. 439; Painton v. North. Cent. Ry., 83 N.Y. 7. The rule as to common carriers, regarding negligence being implied, does not attain between master and servant. Feital v. Middlesex R.R., 109 Mass. 398, 405; Ford v. Fitchburg R.R., 110 Mass. 250, 259.
OPINION
The only evidence in the case is that the plaintiff's intestate, while engaged in the employment of the defendant in making starch, was injured by some of the starch being blown out of the boiler upon him. There is no evidence that the boilers were improperly constructed, or were out of repair. For aught that appears, the accident may have happened by reason of the carelessness of the plaintiff's intestate in letting steam into the boilers, or in opening the covers of the boilers. The evidence does not sustain the burden, which is on the plaintiff to prove either due care on his part, or negligence on the part of the defendant.
Judgment on the verdict.
To continue reading
Request your trial