Demers v. Marshall
| Decision Date | 27 February 1901 |
| Citation | 178 Mass. 9,59 N.E. 454 |
| Parties | DEMERS v. MARSHALL. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
J. W. Cummings, for plaintiff.
Jackson, Slade & Borden, for defendant.
We do not think that the additional evidence introduced at the last trial requires or would justify a different view from that which was taken when the case was here before. 172 Mass. 548, 52 N.E. 1066. Notwithstanding it now appears that projecting setscrews have been going out of use for the last 10 years, on account of safer substitutes, and have not been commonly used in establishments constructed during that time, the new evidence falls far short, as a whole, of showing that they are not still commonly used for holding collars and pulleys onto shafts, and are not a well-recognized device for that purpose. It is expressly stated, indeed, that they have been used in some new establishments; and, though it is said that many establishments existing 10 years ago have got rid of them and have adopted other devices, it is plain that many establishments still continue to use them. The defendant was not bound to change the setscrew, or to point it out to the plaintiff. Ford v. Pulp Co., 172 Mass. 544, 52 N.E. 1065, 48 L. R. A. 96. The risk was an obvious one, which the plaintiff must be held to have assumed. The uncontradicted testimony was that it could be seen from the floor, and the danger from the revolving shaft was apparent. Rooney v. Cordage Co., 161 Mass. 153, 36 N.E. 789; Wilson v. Cotton Mills, 169 Mass. 71, 47 N.E. 506; Donahue v. Manufacturing Co., 169 Mass. 575, 48 N.E. 842; Hale v. Cheney, 159 Mass. 268, 34 N.E. 255. Moreover, instead of putting up his ladder on the side on which he had been instructed to put it up, the plaintiff, without any direction from any one, put it up on the opposite side, and, without any examination, attempted to do the oiling by reaching over the revolving shaft in close proximity to it. This was a dangerous thing to do, especially if, as he testified, 'it was quite dark,' and showed a want of due care. There was nothing to prevent him from moving the castings, or at least from speaking to the foreman about it. The testimony of John Marshall would not have warranted a finding, if that was material, that the mill had been constructed within 10 years, or that the piece of shafting was new. Judgment on the verdict.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
St. Louis Cordage Co. v. Miller
...Co., 172 Mass. 544, 546, 52 N.E. 1065, 48 L.R.A. 96; Sullivan v. Simplex Electrical Co., 178 Mass. 35, 39, 59 N.E. 645; Demers v. Marshall, 178 Mass. 9, 12, 59 N.E. 454; Whalen v. Whitcomb, 178 Mass. 33, 34, 59 N.E. Hall v. Wakefield, etc., Street Ty. Co., 178 Mass. 98, 59 N.E. 668. Nor is ......
-
Johnson v. Ambursen Hydraulic Constructing Company
... ... Mfg. Co., 160 Mo. 608; Lemoine v. Aldrich, 177 ... Mass. 89, 58 N.E. 178; Glavin v. Railroad, 213 Mass ... 435, 100 N.E. 614; Demers v. Marshall, 178 Mass. 9, ... 59 N.E. 454; Wilson v. Mass. Cotton Mills, 169 Mass ... 67, 47 N.E. 506; McIntire v. White et al., 171 Mass ... ...
-
Boll v. Glass & Paint Co.
...189; Higgins v. Faming & Co., 195 Pa. St. 599; Shadford v. Railroad, 111 Mich. 390; Omaha Bottling Co. v. Theiler, 59 Neb. 257; Domers v. Marshall, 178 Mass. 9; Breig v. Railroad, 98 Mich. 222. (a) The evidence failed to show that approved and effective devices, means or methods for prevent......
-
Froelich v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.
... ... 910; Brock v ... Witherbee, 98 N.Y. 562; Corbett v. School ... (N.Y.) 68 N.E. 997; Tomkins v. Machine Co. (N ... J.) 58 A. 393; Demers v. Marshall (Mass.) 59 ... N.E. 454; C. & G. R. Co. v. Armstrong, 62 Ill.App ... 228; Wabash Screen Door Col. v. Black, 126 F. 721; ... ...