Casey v. Frank Jones Brewing Co.

• Decision Date: 29 June 1918
• Citation: 104 A. 454
• Parties: CASEY v. FRANK JONES BREWING CO.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

104 A. 454

CASEY

v. FRANK JONES BREWING CO.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Rockingham.

June 29, 1918.

Transferred from Superior Court, Rockingham County; Sawyer, Judge.

Case by William Casey against the Frank Jones Brewing Company, under Laws 1911, c. 163, to recover for injuries suffered by the plaintiff while employed in rolling barrels of ale across a cellar in the defendant's brewery Trial by jury, and verdict for the plaintiff. The injury was caused by a sliver of iron, which projected from a hoop on a barrel. The sliver appeared old and rusty, and the barrel was not roughly handled after it passed from the control of those whose business it was to inspect and repair it. The defendant excepted to the denial of its motion for a nonsuit and to certain instructions given to the jury. Transferred from the May term, 1917, of the superior court by Sawyer, J. Exceptions overruled.

Ralph C. Gray and Ernest L. Guptill, both of Portsmouth, for plaintiff. Charles H. Batchelder and John L. Mitchell, both of Portsmouth, for defendant.

PEASLEE, J. The defendant's claim that it is not liable under Laws 1911, c. 163, because at the time of the accident the plaintiff was not working upon or in proximity to power-driven machinery, is based upon a misconception of the first opinion in the Lizotte Case, 78 N. H. 354, 100 Atl. 757. The later decision in that case makes it certain that liability under the act is not so limited. Morin, Adm'r, v. Company, 78 N. H. —, 103 Atl. 312.

The defendant also argues that there was no evidence of its fault in permitting the hoop on the barrel the plaintiff was handling to be in a dangerous condition. There was evidence that the defendant provided for more or less inspection to discover such defects, that the silver which injured the plaintiff was rusty, and that the barrel had not been subjected to rough usage after it left the custody of those who were supposed to put it in order. This affords a substantial basis for a finding that the defect existed, and should have been discovered and remedied, before the barrel was delivered to the plaintiff.

The defendant also excepted to the charge upon the ground that there was no evidence as to pain suffered or likely to be suffered by the plaintiff. The injury consisted of a wound in the hand, from which septic poisoning resulted, necessitating the amputation of the hand and a part of the forearm. There was no testimony on the subject of pain, but it must be evident that it is a...