Cote v. D.w. Pingree Co.

• Decision Date: 25 February 1910
• Citation: 205 Mass. 286,91 N.E. 300
• Parties: COTE v. D. W. PINGREE CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

205 Mass. 286

91 N.E. 300

COTE v. D. W. PINGREE CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Essex.

February 25, 1910

COUNSEL

W. S. Peters H. J. Cole, and F. H. Tilton, for plaintiff.

W Coulson, for defendant.

OPINION

SHELDON J.

The plaintiff conceded at the trial that there was no defect in the machine upon which he was at work when he was injured and the third count only of his declaration was submitted to the jury. The defendant's exceptions present the question whether the plaintiff was bound to examine and ascertain what was underneath the table of the machine before putting his hand there, and whether a verdict ought to have been ordered for the defendant. This depends upon whether the jury had a right upon the evidence to find that the defendant was negligent on the ground that it did not give to the plaintiff sufficient instructions or warnings of the dangers which caused his injuries.

The plaintiff's claim was that he put his hand under the table to pull out the box of shavings, as he had been told to do; that by reason of the corner of the box having been knocked off, leaving a hole there, his hand went in farther than it otherwise would have done, and was caught in that part of the saw which was underneath the table. He testified that he did not know that the saw went underneath the table or that there was anything there to cut his hand, and that he had not been told to stop the machine before pulling out the box; and he said that he had repeatedly pulled out the box in the same way while the machine was in motion, in the presence of St. Pierre, who gave or caused to be given to him whatever instructions he received, and that he had not been told by any one that there were saws projecting under the table or that there was any danger in doing as he did on this occasion.

It is difficult to say that the plaintiff's injury did not come from an obvious risk of his employment. The saws projected a little above the surface of the table, and did their work by revolving. It seems to be manifest that they must also project for a greater or less distance underneath the table. And the risk of putting one's hand within the reach of such saws, when they are known to be in motion, is certainly an obvious one. Stuart v. West End Street Ry., 163 Mass. 391, 40 N.E. 180. It is not material that he did not in fact know of this particular danger when he entered the defendant's employ if, by such an examination as he readily could make, he would have learned of its existence. McCafferty v. Lewando's French Dyeing & Cleansing Co., 194 Mass. 412, 80 N.E. 460, 120 Am. St. Rep. 562; Gleason v. Smith, 172 Mass. 50, 52, 51 N.E. 460; Mutter v. Lawrence Manuf. Co., 195 Mass. 517, 81 N.E. 263; McKenna v. Gould Wire Cord Co., 197 Mass. 406, 83 N.E. 1113. But if we assume that this doctrine would not apply to the plaintiff by reason of his comparative youth and inexperience, and of the fact that there was a certain difficulty in seeing the position and arrangement of the saws beneath the table of the machine, as his counsel has earnestly contended (Da Costa v. Hargraves Mills, 170 Mass. 375, 49 N.E. 735), we are brought to the question of whether it can be said that the defendant ought to have warned him of the real state of affairs and of the danger which was involved therein.

We cannot see any ground for saying that the defendant ought to have supposed that the plaintiff needed such a warning. The arrangement of the saws, the length of the slots through which they passed, the work that they did and the manner in which they did it were such that the defendant would be justified in supposing that any one of...