Foley v. Pettee Mach. Works

• Citation: 21 N.E. 304,149 Mass. 294
• Parties: FOLEY v. PETTEE MACHINE WORKS.
• Decision Date: 11 May 1889
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

149 Mass. 294

21 N.E. 304

FOLEY

v.PETTEE MACHINE WORKS.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 11, 1889.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HEREReport from superior court, Suffolk county; SHERMAN, Judge.

This is an action of tort by Michael Foley to recover damages forpersonal injuries sustained while in the employ of defendant. Plaintiff offered evidence tending to show that defendant is a corporation engaged in the manufacture of machinery, and that on April 27, 1888, he was, by direction of defendant's foreman, at work on a drilling machine in their shop. That this machine was operated by means of a shaft on a horizontal plane, revolved by the belting, which shaft, by means of a pair of beveled gears or cogs, revolved another on the same plane, but at right angles with it, and thence by another set of gears the rotary motion was transferred to the drill, which was in a vertical plane, and at right angles with the plane of the shafts. The machine was started and stopped by means of a lever, known as the “shipper handle,” the end of which, while the machine was in motion, was but two or three inches distant from the cogs or gearing first mentioned. At the time of the accident these gears, which were each about five inches in diameter, were not covered or protected in any way. As the operator faced the machine, the shipper handle was at his left, a little above the level of his head. The arrangement and proximity of the gears and shipper handles were plainly in view, and had not been changed since the machine was put into the shop. On the day of the injury plaintiff, by direction of the foreman, was drilling a hole through an iron casting known as a “card side,” six or seven feet in length, and about two and a half in breadth. This card side he had placed upon a table beneath the drill, resting upon its side, while, assisted by one James Mullen, another employé, he held it in position. The drill, which had partially pierced the casting, got caught in the latter, causing the casting, as the witnesses described it, to wabble back and forth. Plaintiff testified that he braced his leg up against it. That his leg was in danger of being broken, and that, his attention being centered upon the casting, he put out his left hand, without looking, to take hold of the shipper handle and stop the machine, when it was caught in the gearing nearest the shipper handle, and the injuries received for which this action is brought; and that if he had been looking his hand would not have caught in the gearing. He testified that at the time of the accident he had been at work upon this machine about two weeks, and that he had never before worked on one of that make. That during those two weeks his work on this machine had consisted in drilling certain castings, known as “arches,” which were about half an inch thick, and when drilled were laid flat upon the table, and that in the drilling of these arches the drill had not shaken or caused them to wabble. That he had been at work upon the castings known as “card sides” four hours when the accident happened, having begun upon them the evening before. That when he began work upon them he was assisted by Mullen, who assisted him to hold them in place while being drilled, and that they differed from the kind of work he had been accustomed to do, in that these castings were a good deal larger, and that he could manage the other castings alone. That he had been assigned to this work by one Keriven, the foreman of the shop, who had also assigned Mullen to assist him. That during the four hours in which he had been at work upon the castings of this size he had drilled nine, and the one on which he was at work when injured was the tenth. That he had received no instructions as to how the machine should be run, that no one had ever said anything to him about it, and that there was no provision about the table to prevent wabbling. Mullen had worked on this same machine off and on during the previous year, and plaintiff had worked machines run by power, with gears and shipper handles, during the previous three years, and had put together the parts of similar machinery during two years before then. He further testified that when he went on this work, and before he was hurt, he had no knowledge of the liability of the casting to wabble. That he had never worked on such a heavy casting, but had always worked on small castings. He further testified that he had worked in the room in which the accident occurred about two or three months, at a distance of 30 or 40 feet away from the machine, and that while in the room he had never seen it cause a casting to wabble, and never used to go there. That this room was about 80 feet in length and about 40 feet in breadth. That when he first went to work in it he ran a grinding machine which was distant from that upon which he was injured about 62 or 63 feet. The gearing connected with the latter was underneath it, and so covered as to be invisible, and he was employed on this about two months when he was set at work upon the drilling machine. He testified that while at work on the former he was not called upon to go to any other part of...