Connors v. Durite Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 30 March 1892
• Citation: Connors v. Durite Mfg. Co., 156 Mass. 163, 30 N. E. 559 (Mass. 1892)
• Parties: CONNORS v. DURITE MANUF'G CO.
• Writing for the Court: LATHROP, J.
• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

156 Mass. 163

30 N.E. 559

CONNORS v. DURITE MANUF'G CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

March 30, 1892

COUNSEL

M. Storey, for plaintiff.

R.M Morse and C.J. Reuter, for defendant.

OPINION

LATHROP J.

The question in this case is whether the court erred in ruling that upon the evidence the plaintiff was not entitled to recover, and in ordering a verdict for the defendant. There was evidence which would have justified the jury in finding that it was the duty of the plaintiff, who was a fireman on a stationary engine, when the engine was at rest, to wipe certain parts of it; that, after the engine had been stopped by the engineer, and was at rest, he began to wipe it; that the engine at once started up, without any one letting on steam, and his hand was caught and injured; and that the starting up was caused by a leak in the throttle-valve. The question is then presented whether there was any evidence of the defendant's negligence. The engine was a second-hand engine when the defendant bought it, about 2 months before the accident, and had been in use 12 or 13 years. It had been partially overhauled by the seller before it had been set up in the defendant's factory; and, a few weeks after it was set up, some repairs were made upon it by an employe of the seller, at the request of the defendant. This employe however, did nothing to the throttle-valve, and did not examine it to see if it leaked, although he testified that he noticed that the cut-off valve had a tendency to hang, and not to shut as intended, and that this defect, in combination with a leaky throttle-valve, would make it possible for the engine to start after it was at rest. There was also evidence that the wear and tear which would produce the condition of things which caused the defendant to send for the employe of the seller of the engine would tend to cause a leaky throttle-valve. Down to the time of the accident no inspection was made of the throttle-valve, although this could readily have been done. It is the duty of a master to provide and maintain reasonably safe and suitable machinery and, while a master may delegate to competent servants the making of ordinary repairs, such as a machine requires from day to day, yet, as to other repairs, the master cannot escape responsibility by merely showing that he has employed intelligent and competent servants, and has furnished them with suitable materials; but h...