Girard v. Griswold

• Decision Date: 19 October 1900
• Citation: 177 Mass. 57,58 N.E. 179
• Parties: GIRARD v. GRISWOLD et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

177 Mass. 57

58 N.E. 179

GIRARD v. GRISWOLD et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Hampden.

October 19, 1900

COUNSEL

T. B. O'Donnell and T. D. O'Brien, for plaintiff.

Brooks & Hamilton, for defendants.

OPINION

KNOWLTON J.

The plaintiff in this case cannot recover, because there is no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendants. The glass water gauge on the front of a very small boiler burst and allowed the steam to escape with a hissing noise. The room where the accident happened was about 90 feet long and very wide, and the boiler stood at one side of it. The plaintiff, a girl of 16 years of age, had been employed there 15 months packing candy in boxes and doing similar work. The room was in the second story of the building, and five girls were at work there at the time. The plaintiff was frightened by the escaping steam, and, although it did not come near her, she ran to an open window, and jumped out, and was injured. There is no evidence that there was any defect in the boiler or water gauge which the defendants could have discovered by the exercise of ordinary care. There was nothing to show the cause of the bursting of the gauge. The only testimony on the subject came from a single witness called as an expert by the plaintiff, who said that he had been an engineer taking care of boilers and engines for 22 years. He testified that this gauge was of a kind in common use on boilers; that it was to show to the engineer the height of water in the boiler; that the glass is liable to burst from causes that are known and from causes that are unknown. He said that he had never in his experience known a water gauge to go two years without bursting. There was no testimony as to what the known causes of bursting are. He testified that the wheels shown him, connected with the gauge, were to shut off the water in an instant, and his evidence tended to show that the only danger from the bursting of such a gauge to employés about the room was from the water getting too low in the boiler, if there was nobody to shut it off. It appeared that there was an engineer in charge of the defendants' boiler, and the testimony tended to show that the escaping steam was shut off in less than half a minute after the gauge burst. There was no evidence tending to show that reasonable care on the part of the defendants called for any additional precautions to prevent such accidents as happened to the...