Donahue v. Washburn & Moen Mfg. Co.
| Decision Date | 24 November 1897 |
| Citation | 48 N.E. 842,169 Mass. 574 |
| Parties | DONAHUE v. WASHBURN & MOEN MANUF'G CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Burton W. Potter, for plaintiff.
W.S.B. Hopkins and Frank Bulkeley Smith, for defendant.
It is not very easy to understand from the exceptions the precise manner in which the accident occurred. The plaintiff testified that his glove got caught on the coach or set screw when he reached his hand in to cut the wire for the purpose of taking the reel of wire from the block. When and how he reached his hand in is not clear. But he had worked for six weeks on the machine on which he was injured, and for two years before that on a similar machine, which only differed from the one in question in making 18 or 20 revolutions instead of 30 or 32 a minute, and in being 22 inches in diameter instead of 16. There was a coach or set screw on that like the one which caught the plaintiff's glove on the machine when he was hurt. The work done on both machines was the same,--that of reeling wire,--and the operation of them was the same, and the only difference between the two was, as already stated, that the one on which the plaintiff was injured revolved a little faster, and was a little smaller, than the other. There is nothing to show that the plaintiff was not of full age, and of average understanding. And we think that, taking his experience into account, the risk must be held to have been an obvious one, and that he assumed it. Goodnow v. Emery Mills, 146 Mass. 261, 267, 15 N.E. 576; Hale v. Cheney, 159 Mass. 268, 34 N.E. 255; Rooney v. Cordage Co., 161 Mass. 153, 36 N.E. 789; Connelly v. Woolen Co., 163 Mass. 156, 39 N.E. 787. There was nothing out of order about the set screw. It was a common device for the purpose for which it was used, and was put on in the usual manner, and did not of itself constitute a defect in the ways, works, or machinery. Goodnow v. Emery Mills, supra; Rooney v. Cordage Co., supra. We do not mean to say that a set screw might not be so used as to constitute a defect. The defendant has not argued that there was any negligence on the part of the foreman, and we think that the evidence does not show any. In the opinion of a majority of the court, there should be judgment on the verdict. So ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial