Finnegan v. Samuel Winslow Skate Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 04 December 1905
• Citation: 189 Mass. 580,76 N.E. 192
• Parties: FINNEGAN v. SAMUEL WINSLOW SKATE MFG. CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

189 Mass. 580

76 N.E. 192

FINNEGAN v. SAMUEL WINSLOW SKATE MFG. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

December 4, 1905

COUNSEL

John R Thayer, Arthur P. Rugg, Henry H. Thayer, and Michl. T. Carrigan, for plaintiff.

Herbt. Parker, Chas. C. Milton, and Geo. A. Gaskill, for defendant.

OPINION

BRALEY J.

Among the appliances furnished the plaintiff for use in his work was a freight elevator, operated by means of a shipping rod and running in a well or hatchway extending from the basement through the different floors of the defendant's factory. On the day of the accident, though this rod was in working order and properly used, the car in ascending from the basement failed to stop at the first floor, as it should have done, and, continuing to ascend, caused the plaintiff's injury.

It is the contention of the defendant that no evidence of faulty construction, or of equipment, or of a defentive condition prior to this time appears, and the mere failure of the elevator to work properly does not justify an inference of its negligence. But, if proof of the accident was not sufficient to establish this fact, the pliantiff testified that the car, while in operation on the morning of the day that he was injured, 'jumped and jarred,' and started and stopped irregularly. Among the witnesses called by him was a mechanical expert whose qualifications were unquestioned, and who had made an examination of the hatchway, the car, and the guides on which it ran. From the examination, and his previous knowledge obtained when acting as an inspector of this and other elevators, he testified that in his opinion the failure of the car to stop at the floor level was due to the fact that the shipping mechanism and hoisting apparatus were out of order. According to common experience such machinery naturally would deteriorate from constant use, and frequent inspection might be called for to determine whether it was safe. In the discharge of the duty that an employer owes to his employé, how far he is called upon in the exercise of reasonable care to make an inspection depends upon the character of the apparatus, the length of time it has been in operation, and the nature of the use to which it is subjected. If this want of repair existed, it could be found that the elevator thereby was rendered unsafe for use, and became defective. It then became a question of fact for the jury to determine whether from the nature of the defect, and upon reasonable examination, it could have been discovered and remedied.

It is provided by Rev. Laws. c. 104, § 27, that 'elevators cabs or cars, whether used for freight or passengers * * * shall be guarded and equipped with some attachment or device fastened to the elevator cab or car, elevator well, or floor of the...