Boucher v. Robeson Mills

• Decision Date: 09 January 1903
• Citation: Boucher v. Robeson Mills, 182 Mass. 500, 65 N.E. 819 (Mass. 1903)
• Parties: BOUCHER v. ROBESON MILLS.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

182 Mass. 500

65 N.E. 819

BOUCHER v. ROBESON MILLS.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Bristol.

January 9, 1903

COUNSEL

J. W. Cummings, for plaintiff.

Jackson Slade & Borden, for defendant.

OPINION

LATHROP J.

This is an action of tort.The declaration contains two counts at common law, and two under the Statutes of 1887, c. 270, § 1 subsecs.1, 2.No question of pleading was raised, and the bill of exceptions states merely that the case was under the employers' liability act.At the trial in the superior court the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the case is before us on an exception to the refusal of the trial judge to direct a verdict for the defendant, and on an exception to the admission of evidence.

The accident was caused by the breaking of a belt which ran from a spinning frame to overhead shafting in the defendant's cotton mill.One end of the belt struck the plaintiff, and destroyed the sight of one eye.The plaintiff was 26 years old, and was a man of some experience.He had been employed in another cotton mill for several years, and had known of belts breaking there.He also had been a second hand there and had taken care of belts and had put them on.He had been employed in the defendant's mills for about a week before the accident as a spare hand, but had had nothing to do with the belts; and he testified that he knew nothing of their condition.On the morning of the accident the plaintiff was temporarily set to work as third hand, but was kept busy under orders from a superior officer, on work not relating to belts, until the time of the accident, when he was called to see why the frame would not work.While stooping down, endeavoring to discover the cause of the trouble, the belt broke, and he received the injury complained of.There was evidence that the breaking of the belt was caused by its defective condition.There was also evidence in the case that at the time of the injury one Cadoret had been overseer of this room where the plaintiff was, and of two other rooms, for about six months; that before that one Aspinwall had been overseer, and that the witness Edmund Boucher, a second hand in the room where the accident happened, and in another room, had told Aspinwall about the condition of the belts, saying that they did not run very well, and were always broken; that after that the witness changed some of the belts; that, after Cadoret came there, the witness spoke to Cadoret about the belts, and Cadoret asked the witness what these belts were for, and the witness said they were to replace the bad that were on there; that later, when the witness had just put on a new belt, Cadoret said, 'Why did you put that new belt there?' and was told that the old one did not run well, and was always on the floor; and that Cadoret said: 'It isn't necessary to spoil them in that manner.That belt was just as good as the other.It ran just as well as the other.As for new belts, you don't need any.You have enough for ten years in the cupboard, old belts.'The witness further testified that after that he did not put on any new belts.Cadoret, who was a witness for the defendant, denied that he had stopped the second hand from putting on new belts; but on cross-examination he admitted that he told him there were enough old belts there that were in good condition, and they could be used up.He also testified that the belt in question was about 22 or 25 feet long, and made about 550 revolutions a minute, with a strain of two horse power upon it. ...