Golden v. Mannex
| Decision Date | 22 May 1913 |
| Citation | 214 Mass. 502,101 N.E. 1081 |
| Parties | GOLDEN v. MANNEX. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
David A. Ellis and Charles J. McGilvray, both of Boston, for plaintiff.
John Lowell and Kenneth Howes, both of Boston, for defendant.
It is not necessary to repeat the evidence. The jury could well find that the plaintiff was in the exercise of due care. They could find that the cable in use had been subjected to undue strains by lifting heavier loads than it was adapted for, that some of its strands or wires had become broken, and that it was so weakened as to be unsafe for the purpose for which it was being used. They could find that the defendant had not taken proper care to inspect it, and was negligent in not having discovered its weakened condition and in allowing it to be used on this occasion. It follows that his requests for rulings rightly were refused. Moreover the very fact that the cable broke as it did was some evidence that it had become unsound. Doherty v. Booth, 200 Mass. 522, 525, 86 N.E. 945. And an unsuccessful attempt of the plaintiff to explain the accident would not prevent the drawing of this inference. McNamara v. Boston & Maine R. R., 202 Mass. 491, 497, 89 N.E. 131; McDonough v. Boston Elev. R. R., 208 Mass. 436, 440, 94 N.E. 809. Whether the attempt was unsuccessful was of course for the jury to say.
The testimony of Johnson that the effect of the wearing down of the strands on a cable of this type would be to diminish its strength was not incompetent. We cannot say that this was a matter of common knowledge, as in Doherty v. Booth, 200 Mass. 522, 526, 86 N.E. 945, in view of the testimony put in by the defendant that this abrasion would not have the effect claimed by the plaintiff.
The testimony of Woods, which the defendant has argued ought not to have been admitted, was indeed objected to by the defendant, but its admission was not excepted to. We do not intimate that the exception could have been sustained if it had been taken.
What we have said disposes of all the points that have been argued.
Exceptions overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Removich v. Bambrick Brothers Construction Company
...Anderson v. Railroad, 149 Mo.App. 272; Lucid v. Powder Co., 199 F. 377; Byers v. Steel Co., 159 F. 347, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 214; Golden v. Mannex, 214 Mass. 502; Chiuccariello v. Campbell, 210 Mass. Doherty v. Booth, 200 Mass. 522; Sullivan v. Rowe, 194 Mass. 500; Armour v. Golkowska, 202 I......
-
Calvanese v. W. W. Babcock Co., Inc.
...in cases involving the unexplained breaking of a rope (Doherty v. Booth, 200 Mass. 522, 86 N.E. 945 (1909)), a cable (Golden v. Mannex, 214 Mass. 502, 101 N.E. 1081 (1913)), a chain (Cushing v. G.W. & F. Smith Iron Co., 194 Mass. 310, 80 N.E. 596 (1907)), a theatre seat (Couris v. Casco Amu......
-
Shipp v. Boston & M.R.R.
...v. C. H. Buck & Co., 197 Mass. 550, 83 N. E. 1090,18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 476;Doherty v. Booth, 200 Mass. 522, 86 N. E. 945;Golden v. Mannex, 214 Mass. 502, 101 N. E. 1081. Since it could not have been found that the hook was defective, obviously it could not have been found that the defendant ......
-
Fahey v. Osol
...been able to withstand is some evidence of the defendant's negligence. Graham v. Badger, 164 Mass. 42, 41 N.E. 61. See Golden v. Mannex, 214 Mass. 502, 504, 101 N.E. 1081. And though it is not enough by itself to sustain a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, Gauld v. John Hancock Mut. Life I......