Buttle v. George G. Page Box Co.

• Citation: 56 N.E. 583,175 Mass. 318
• Parties: BUTTLE v. GEORGE G. PAGE BOX CO.
• Decision Date: 01 March 1900
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

175 Mass. 318

56 N.E. 583

BUTTLE v. GEORGE G. PAGE BOX CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

March 1, 1900

COUNSEL

H. J. Edwards and R. E. Harding, for plaintiff.

E. R Champlin and G. L. Wilson, for defendant.

OPINION

HAMMOND J.

The general instruction upon which this case was submitted to the jury was as follows: 'If the plaintiff was ordered by Gillis to oil the band-saw machine while it was in motion and in obedience to such order attempted to oil the machine and the work of oiling the machine while in motion was more dangerous than the work he had been employed to do, and had done up to the time of the giving of such order, and the plaintiff, by reason of his youth or inexperience, was incapable of appreciating the increased danger to which he exposed himself, or of doing the work safely without instruction or cautions, which he did not receive, the plaintiff may maintain this action, provided the jury find that there was no negligence on his part.' Assuming this to be a correct statement of the law, the main question is whether, under that instruction, the evidence warranted a verdict for the plaintiff. Upon the evidence, were the jury warranted in finding that the plaintiff, by reason of his youth or inexperience, was incapable of appreciating the increased danger to which he exposed himself in the attempt to oil the saw, or of doing that work safely without instructions or cautions, which he did not receive? What he was told to do was to oil the saw while in motion. It was a band saw, about 2 1/2 inches in width, having teeth on one edge. He was not to touch the saw, or to place the oil directly upon it, and he knew that, and did not attempt to do either. He knew what to do with the oil. He was to pour it into a little cup which was on top of one of the feed rolls nearest the saw. Under the table was another cup, prepared for the same purpose, into which the plaintiff testified that he had himself poured oil several times before the accident, for the purpose of oiling the saw. He knew how to pour oil into such a cup from such an oil can. The pair of feed rolls, upon one of which was the cup into which the plaintiff was attempting to pour the oil at the time of the accident, stood one on each side of the saw, in front of the teeth, and so close that a straight line drawn across from one to the other would clear the teeth by only three-quarters of an inch. The cup was,...