Filosi v. Boston Woven Hose & Rubber Co.
| Decision Date | 20 May 1913 |
| Citation | 214 Mass. 408,101 N.E. 969 |
| Parties | FILOSI v. BOSTON WOVEN HOSE & RUBBER CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Stebbins Storer & Burbank, of Boston, for plaintiff.
Sawyer Hardy & Stone, of Boston, for defendant.
This is an action of tort to recover for personal injuries. There was a verdict for the plaintiff for $8,000. The defendant moved to set it aside on the ground that as matter of law there was no evidence to warrant it. The court so ruled, and with the consent of the parties reported the case to the full court the parties agreeing that if the ruling was erroneous judgment is to be entered for the plaintiff for $8,000 and interest from the date of the verdict and costs of suit; otherwise judgment is to be entered for the defendant.
The question is, Was there any evidence warranting a verdict for the plaintiff? We think that there was.
At the time of the accident the plaintiff was at work upon a milling or mixing machine, and had been so employed for six months or upwards. The machine consisted of two rolls revolving inwardly towards each other, an inch or two apart, and about breast high. It was used for mixing rubber, pitch, shoddy and other materials. The rolls were heated and were about two feet long and eighteen inches in diameter. The pitch and other materials were thrown in between the rolls and were mixed and ground up together as the rolls revolved. The pitch which was in hard lumps became soft and sticky and adhered to the rolls. More or less of the material fell through between the rolls into a pan underneath and the plaintiff would take it out of the pan with a short shovel and put it back onto the rolls. He was in the act of doing that when the shovel got stuck in the pitch, and as he let go of the handle the shovel struck his hand and pressed it down into the pitch and his hand and arm were drawn in between the rolls before they could be stopped, causing the injuries complained of. In operating the machine the operator stood in front of it, and in front of him and about two feet above the machine was a handle attached to a rope to be pulled for the purpose of stopping the machine. There was also a bar with which to stop the machine. The plaintiff testified, amongst other things, that he was told by the man whom 'the boss' appointed to instruct him when he was set to work on the machine that He further testified that it was his right hand that was caught and that as soon as it was caught he pulled the rope with his left hand, but that the machine did not stop. Workmen who came to his assistance testified that they also pulled the rope and the machine did not stop, and that it was not till the engine was stopped that the machine was stopped and the plaintiff's arm taken out from between the rolls.
We think that there was evidence of due care on the part of the plaintiff and of negligence on the part of the defendant.
So far as appears the plaintiff was operating the machine in the usual way at the time of the accident, and he pulled the cord as he was told to do by the man who instructed him in case his fingers got caught. It certainly could not be said to be the plaintiff's fault that the machine did not stop. Neither do we see how it can be ruled as matter of law that he was negligent in allowing his hand to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial