Brundige v. Dodge Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 27 February 1903
• Citation: 66 N.E. 604,183 Mass. 100
• Parties: BRUNDIGE v. DODGE MFG. CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

183 Mass. 100

66 N.E. 604

BRUNDIGE v. DODGE MFG. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

February 27, 1903

COUNSEL

Edgar

O. Achorn, for plaintiff.

G. W Buck, for defendant.

OPINION

LATHROP J.

This is an action of tort at common law for injuries sustained by the plaintiff while in the defendant's employ. The case comes before us on exceptions to the ruling of the presiding judge at the close of the plaintiff's evidence, that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover. The injury occurred while the plaintiff was engaged in truing a sheave or wheel used in transmitting power by means of a wire rope, caused as he testified, by putting his chisel too hard against the surface of the wood. The effect of this was to break the fulcrum on which the tool was resting, and to cause the tool to fly up and strike him.

The first ground of complaint is that the plaintiff was not furnished with a proper tool to do the work. But this is disposed of by the testimony of the plaintiff that 'the defendant had nothing to do with furnishing me with a tool except Mr. Underwood told me I would get it there [i. e., the place to which he was sent to do the work], and I got it. Carpenters furnish their own tools.' It also appears that he obtained a piece of steel, and ground one end down to a V shape on an emery wheel. The evidence that another instrument was less dangerous was immaterial.

The next ground of complaint is that the plaintiff should have been instructed as to the dangers of the work. While the plaintiff testified that he had never trued any sheaves before this job, there is nothing to show that either the defendant or its officers had any reason to suppose that this was the case. When directed to do the work, he made no objection, but proceeded to do it in his own way. The platform on which he stood was constructed under his direction. He made the tool himself, and gave the direction for putting the sheave in motion. He was a man of experience. He was 46 years old at the time of the accident. He had been in the employ of the defendant for 14 months. During this time he had acted as foreman on two or three occasions. He had erected and lined up shafting, and had assisted in putting pulleys on shafting. He had worked as a carpenter for 28 or 29 years, and was familiar with different kinds of wood and edgecutting tools. In addition to all this, shortly before the accident he had trued...