Gleason v. Smith

• Decision Date: 20 October 1898
• Citation: 172 Mass. 50,51 N.E. 460
• Parties: GLEASON v. SMITH.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

172 Mass. 50

51 N.E. 460

GLEASON v. SMITH.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

October 20, 1898

COUNSEL

J.R. Thayer and

A.P. Rugg, for plaintiff.

E.P Pierce and J.A. Stiles, for defendant.

OPINION

KNOWLTON J.

The plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a molder in a woodworking shop, where piano cases were manufactured; and while working upon a machine, molding the top of a piano, his thumb and two fingers were cut off. He contends that the defendant was negligent in setting him to work upon a dangerous machine without warning him of the danger. The only objection which he now makes to the machine is that a guard used upon it was not so wide as it should have been. The plaintiff testified that he had been a molder ten years or more, and had worked for the defendant in this shop about four years prior to the accident, and, before working for the defendant, had worked in four other shops where work was done similar to that done by the defendant. In these shops he had worked two years upon a machine like that upon which he was injured, except in respect to its guard. In the defendant's shop he had worked molding pieces of wood smaller than piano tops, upon machines whose working was similar to that upon which he was injured, but he had never worked upon that particular machine until the day of the accident. He testified that he knew that guards or springs are not made or furnished by manufacturers of molding machines, and that the machines made no provision for the attachment of guards or springs; that they are not ordinarily provided by employers for use upon machines; that in every instance, so far as he knew, they were made by the workmen without request or direction of employers, when they could use them; that, when he worked in another shop molding piano tops, he had made one similar to that upon the defendant's machine, except that it covered the whole sweep of the knives, and that he made it from his own experience and judgment, without request from his employer. The guard on the defendant's machine had been made five or six years before the accident, by some workmen employed in the defendant's shop, and had been used as the work done there required ever since. It was there when the plaintiff entered the defendant's service, and was the only one that had been in the shop during the time that he worked there. It was used only when piano tops were being molded. It was not imperfect or defective in form or material, except that it did not cover the entire sweep of the knives, and did not furnish so much protection to the workmen as if it had been wider. The plaintiff, while working upon the machine saw a defect in the board that was being molded, and put his hand along the outer edge of the guard, to examine the defect, and to discover by the sense of feeling just what it was. His fingers came in contact with the rapidly revolving knives, and were cut.

We need not consider the question whether there was any evidence that the plaintiff was in exercise of due care, for we are of opinion that...