Brady v. Ludlow Mfg. Co.
| Decision Date | 24 October 1891 |
| Parties | BRADY v. LUDLOW MANUF'G CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
J.B. Carroll, for plaintiff.
Geo. D Robinson and F.H. Gillett, for defendant.
The only defect relied upon by the plaintiff in this case was an alleged defective condition of the gate. No claim was made on account of the gears, and it was admitted by the plaintiff that he understood the danger of injury from them, and that he needed no instructions about them. The defect in the gate was that, when swung together, it would not catch on the fastening, and if fastened would not stay so, but would stand a little way open. There was no contention that the gate was defective in any other particular. It was designed to close automatically, and the undisputed testimony of witnesses for the plaintiff and for the defendant was that this was the best mode of construction for the use for which it was designed. It was not a heavy gate, but was made of light iron rods, and the evidence tended to show that it would remain at rest when partly open, unless something came in contact with it and moved it. The accident seems to have been caused by the plaintiff's hitting the gate when he was getting up to take the waste from the top of the gears. He said, in testifying, "I know I must have touched it when getting up." It was necessary to have the gate open when the gears were being cleaned. Upon undisputed facts, there was no defect or danger of which it was the defendant's duty to warn the plaintiff, or any particular in which the plaintiff should have been instructed. He understood the dangers involved in cleaning the gears as well as anybody, and the defendant had no reason to fear an accident except from causes which were obvious to the plaintiff. There was no evidence to warrant a verdict for the plaintiff on the first count. Ciriack v. Woolen Co., 146 Mass. 182, 15 N.E 579; Probert v. Phipps, 149 Mass. 260, 21 N.E. 370; Crowley v. Pacific Mills, 148 Mass. 228, 19 N.E. 344.
The fourth count is founded on the alleged defect in the gate. But the defect had no connection with the accident. If the device for fastening the gate had worked perfectly, it would have made no difference to the plaintiff, for he could not clean the gears without keeping the gate open. There was no evidence that he was injured by reason of any defect or want of repair in the defendant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dewing v. New York Cent. R. Co.
...256 Mass. 337, 152 N. E. 373;Griffin v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad, 279 Mass. 511, 181 N. E. 839;Brady v. Ludlow Manuf. Co., 154 Mass. 468, 28 N. E. 901;Clare v. New York & New England Railroad, 172 Mass. 211, 51 N. E. 1083, G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 231, § 7, Second. The evidence te......
-
Corbett v. Boston & M.R.r.
... ... remedy of the plaintiff was under our Employers' ... Liability Act or at common law. Brady v. Ludlow Mfg ... Co., 154 Mass. 468, 28 N.E. 901; Howard v. Fall ... River Iron Works Co., 203 ... ...
-
Sawyer v. Hillgrove
...the propriety of the ruling is apparent. It was a matter wholly within the discretion of the trial judge. Brady v. Ludlow Mfg. Co., 154 Mass. 468, 28 N. E. 901; Golding v. Brennan, 183 Mass. 286, 67 N. E. 239. The discretionary power of the court was not transcended here; on the contrary, i......
-
Dewing v. New York Central Railroad Co.
...Renaldi v. New York Central Railroad, 256 Mass. 337 . Griffin v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad, 279 Mass. 511 . Brady v. Ludlow Manuf. Co. 154 Mass. 468 . Clare New York & New England Railroad, 172 Mass. 211 . G.L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 231, Section 7, Second. The evidence tended to prove......