Collins v. Laconia Oar Co.

• Decision Date: 15 March 1895
• Citation: 38 A. 1047,68 N.H. 196
• Parties: COLLINS v. LACONIA OAR CO.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

38 A. 1047

68 N.H. 196

COLLINS

v. LACONIA OAR CO.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Belknap.

March 15, 1895.

Exceptions from Belknap county.

Case by Patrick Collins against the Laconia Car Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants except. Beversed.

Case, for injuries to the plaintiff from a defective machine, while in the employment of the defendants. Trial by jury. The machine was about 3 feet wide, 2 3/4 feet deep, and 6 feet high. It was known as a "press machine." It was placed upon and fastened to a wooden foundation, the base of the machine being 3 or 4 inches above the basement floor of the shop. Attached were the uncovered cog wheels, the in-running side being their underedge, or rim. The machine was operated by a belt connecting it with shafting overhead. The distance from the floor to the center of the gearing was 5 feet and 1 inch. The distance from the back side of the machine to the wall of the shop was about 8 inches, and from the gearings to the wall of the shop was 29 inches. Attached to the wall behind the machine, and about 3 feet from the floor, was a shelf and a small cupboard, where the men who operated the machine placed some of their small tools, aprons, and other clothing. The machine was operated by one Laprise and the plaintiff. Laprise's place was on the left. It was his duty to pass rods of iron through a groove on the front side, where they were cut off the required length for bolts, the pieces dropping into a bucket and sometimes upon the floor. It was the duty of the plaintiff, whose place was on the right, to gather up the pieces, and carry them to other parts of the shop, as he might be directed. The cog wheels were upon the right side, about as high above the floor as the plaintiff's shoulders, and were in plain view. On the morning of the accident, as soon as the machine was started up, the plaintiff reached for his apron upon the shelf. In withdrawing his arm, his hand in some way was caught in the gearing of the cog wheels, and was injured. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff had worked on the machine nearly a year. He was about 52 years of age, and of average intelligence. No warning as to the danger from the gearing, or instruction as to the precautions which should be taken to avoid it, was given to him by the defendants; and there was also evidence tending to show that the gearing should have been covered to make it reasonably safe. The plaintiff testified that he knew he would get hurt if he got his hand in the gearing, but that he never thought of the danger, and that, when he took his apron from the bench, he was not thinking of it, and that, if he had, he supposed he should not have got hurt. The defendants seasonably moved for a nonsuit, which was denied, subject to exception. Verdict for the plaintiff.

E. H. Shannon, W. S. Peaslee, Cogswell & Blackstone, and E. A. & C. B. Hibbard, for plaintiff.

Jewell, Stone, Owen & Martin, for defendants.

BLODGETT, J. The motion for a nonsuit should have been granted. Familiar principles of universal acceptation, as well as recent decisions of this court (Bancroft v. Railroad, 30 Atl. 409, 410; Henderson v. Williams, 66 N. H. 405, 23 Atl. 365; Nash v. Steel Co., 62 N. H. 406, 408), forbid any other conclusion. The plaintiff's grounds of complaint are solely (1) that the gearing was not reasonably and safely...