Cheney v. Middlesex Co.

• Decision Date: 17 May 1894
• Parties: CHENEY v. MIDDLESEX CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

161 Mass. 296

37 N.E. 175

CHENEY v. MIDDLESEX CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 17, 1894

COUNSEL

John W. Corcoran and McDonald & O'Toole, for plaintiff.

Prentiss Webster, for defendant.

OPINION

LATHROP, J.

This is an action at common law for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff while in the employ of the defendant, by reason of his hand being caught in the gearing of a spinning machine, called a "mule." At the close of the evidence the court directed a verdict for the defendant, and the case comes before us on the plaintiff's exception to this ruling.

The plaintiff was 18 years of age, and had, for a considerable time before the accident, worked on spinning machines. He had attended school, and was in the Lowell high school when he went to work for the defendant. There is nothing to show that he was not a person of ordinary intelligence. On going to work for the defendant, he was in the picker room for three days, and was then set to work in the mule room, and on the fourth day of his working there was injured. There were two mules, each about 30 or 35 feet long, which stood with their backs to each other, there being an alleyway 21/2 feet wide between them. In the center of each mule was an arrangement of gearing which operated the front part of the mule, called the "carriage," and did the spinning. This gearing was protected by a framework consisting of uprights and an arm, which prevented the gearing from being seen. While the plaintiff was passing through the alleyway, with one hand in front of him and the other behind him, because, as he testified, he considered it a safe and proper way to carry them, he heard some one cry out, turned quickly round, dropped one of his hands, and it was caught in the gearing. There does not appear to have been any occasion for the plaintiff to go into the alleyway. While he testified that it was necessary to go there in order to get the spools ready for the operation called "doffing,"--that is, taking off one set of spools and putting on another,--he also testified that the doffing could be done from the front by stopping the machine; and he gave as his reason for going into the alleyway to do this work that he saved the time while the machine would be stopped, and so would make more money. But if we assume that the plaintiff was properly in the alleyway, and in the exercise of due care, we are of opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover. We fail to find any evidence of negligence on the part of the...