Forance v. Bigelow-Hartford Carpet Co.

• Decision Date: 24 November 1926
• Parties: FORANCE v. BIGELOW-HARTFORD CARPET CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

257 Mass. 507

154 N.E. 174

FORANCE

v.BIGELOW-HARTFORD CARPET CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

Nov. 24, 1926.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Worcester County; W. P. Hall, Judge.

Action of tort by Walter J. Forance against the Bigelow-Hartford Carpet Company to recover for personal injuries from alleged negligence of defendant. Verdict directed for defendant, and plaintiff excepts. Exceptions overruled.

J. M. Hoy, of Boston (J. E. Casey, of Boston, on the brief), for plaintiff.

C. C. Milton, of Worcester (G. A. White, of Worcester, on the brief), for defendant.

BRALEY, J.

The defendant corporation engaged in the manufacture of carpets, used a dye house which by long usage had become so outworn that the directors decided to build a new one. During its construction, the company continued to use the machinery and appliances which were run by electric motors located in the dye house. By reason of these conditions and to avoid any interruption of business the process of dyeing, as well as the work of demolition and of reconstruction were concurrent. It accordingly became necessary to install a temporary system of electric wiring, which upon completion of the dye house was to be replaced by a permanent system. The wires, three in number, are referred to in the record as ‘power lines' carrying a high voltage sufficient to operate the motors. They were strung near the ceiling and attached to columns or posts of wood having metal caps, which could be found to be eighteen feet in height. The jury could find that the plaintiff, a painter by trade and the employee of an independent contractor, who had been engaged to do the painting, was at work standing on a ladder painting the top of the post where the lines ended, when becoming unsteady in his footing, and to save himself from falling, he ‘threw up his right hand to get support from the ceiling,’ and grasped the wires, from which he could not remove his hand. He called for assistance, became unconscious, and was removed by fellow employees, who shut off the current. The inference also was warrantable that in some way he received an electric shock, which on the medical testimony as well as on his own description, caused serious physical harm.

It appeared in the evidence of the defendant's ‘head electrician’ that the lines which were placed in position by the defendant, consisted of old wires taken from the store room of the electrical department, and ‘probably were pieces...