Burnham v. Lincoln
| Decision Date | 03 January 1917 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | HELEN L. BURNHAM v. W. IRVING LINCOLN & another. |
November 13, 1916.
Present: RUGG, C.
J., LORING, DE COURCY, CROSBY, & CARROLL, JJ.
Actionable Tort. Negligence, Explosion. Explosion.
In an action by a domestic servant against the owner of a carboy for personal injuries caused by the explosion of the carboy when the plaintiff was pouring spring water from it into a pitcher, it appeared that the defendant carried on the business of bottling and selling spring water, that he did not make carboys but bought them, as he did this carboy, from a reputable dealer, and that he had lent this carboy to the plaintiff's employer until its contents should be used. He testified that it was his custom to examine the carboys when washing and refilling them, that so far as he knew this carboy was not defective when delivered to the plaintiff's employer and that he "never had anything like this happen before." An expert witness testified that the explosion was due to the contraction of the glass caused by contact with water of somewhat higher temperature and that this was "the first time he had ever heard of anything happening just like this." All the evidence tended to show that such an occurrence was theretofore unheard of. Held, that it could not be said that the defendant by the exercise of reasonable care would have foreseen that such an unprecedented occurrence was likely to happen, that there was no evidence of any failure of duty on his part toward the plaintiff and that a verdict must be ordered for the defendant.
CONTRACT OR TORT against copartners engaged in the business of bottling and selling spring water, for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff on July 1, 1912, by reason of the explosion of a five gallon glass carboy belonging to the defendants and containing spring water. Writ dated November 14, 1912.
In the Superior Court the case was tried before Keating, J. The evidence is described in the opinion. At the close of the evidence, the judge ordered the jury to return a verdict for the defendants, and reported the case for determination by this court, with a stipulation of the parties that, if this ruling was correct, judgment should be entered for the defendants but that, if this ruling was wrong and the case should have been submitted to the jury, judgment should be entered for the plaintiff in the sum of $650.
The case was submitted on briefs.
H. N. Berry & C.
C. Bucknam, for the plaintiff.
A. P. Worthen, for the defendants.
DE COURCY, J. On the plaintiff's testimony, while she was employed as a nurse in the family of one Morse and was pouring spring water from a carboy into a pitcher, there was a loud noise like an explosion, the whole upper half of the carboy broke into fragments, pieces of broken glass flew about with great force, and some of them struck her hand causing the injury complained of. The water was not carbonated but was a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Evangelio v. Metropolitan Bottling Co.
...after it had passed from the control of the defendant. 2 Both the Howard and the Ruffin opinions relied in part on Burnham v. Lincoln, 225 Mass. 408, 114 N.E. 715, where recovery was denied a plaintiff who was injured by the explosion of a carboy containing spring water. That case is also d......
-
Carter v. Yardley & Co.
...Wheel Co., 194 Mass. 341, 80 N.E. 482 (no liability to employee of remote purchaser of emery wheel that burst); Burnham v. Lincoln, 225 Mass. 408, 114 N.E. 715 (no liability to nurse in family of purchaser of carboy that broke); Tompkins v. Quaker Oats Co., 239 Mass. 147, 131 N.E. 456 (no l......
-
Carter v. Yardley & Co.
...[1] Lebourdais v. Vitrified Wheel Co. 194 Mass. 341 (no liability to employee of remote purchaser of emery wheel that burst). Burnham v. Lincoln, 225 Mass. 408 (no liability to nurse in family of purchaser of carboy that broke). Tompkins v. Quaker Oats Co. 239 Mass. 147 (no liability to rem......
-
Defore v. Bourjois, Inc.
...bottle or any indication as to what the minimum thickness should be. We are impressed with the reasoning in the case of Burnham v. Lincoln, 225 Mass. 408, 114 N.E. 715, wherein plaintiff, a nurse, was pouring water from a carboy into a pitcher and there was a loud explosion, breaking the ca......