Goulding v. Eastern Bridge & Structural Co.
| Decision Date | 17 October 1911 |
| Citation | 210 Mass. 52,96 N.E. 71 |
| Parties | GOULDING v. EASTERN BRIDGE & STRUCTURAL CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Oct 17, 1911.
Marvin M. Taylor, for plaintiff.
Parker & Milton, Chas. C. Milton, and Frank L. Riley, for defendant.
DE COURCY, J.
This was an action of tort to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff while working for the defendant, near a revolving shaft. The shaft extended north and south in the peak of a building, on a level with the west eaves and 17 feet, 5 inches from the ground. Parallel to the shaft and about 8 1/4 inches below it were two 8-inch planks securely fastened, which served as a walk on either side of the shafting; the upper right hand corner of the westerly plank being 12 3/4 inches from the shaft. There was a large beam 25 inches below but not parallel with the plank. In getting to the plank walk for the purpose of oiling the shafting the plaintiff went up a stationary ladder to the beam and climbed upon the plank, returning to the floor by the same route.
The plaintiff was 18 1/2 years of age at the time of the accident. He had worked for the defendant several months first in the blacksmith shop helping his father as a striker and using the drilling machines, and later in its machine shop operating a lathe. For four or five weeks prior to the accident one of his duties was that of oiling the shafting in different parts of the defendant's plant. He was first sent with a fellow workman, who took him through the buildings and oiled the boxes but gave him no oral instructions. After the first time the plaintiff himself oiled all the shafting in the mill. For three or four weeks he had oiled this particular shaft every Monday morning after the works were started up, and had gone to his work and come down the same way. The shaft was 2 inches in diameter and revolved 165 times per minute. The plaintiff testified that it was red and rusty, that there was a strong draft around there, that 'it was neither light nor dark but one could see what he was doing,' and that he was always looking out not to get too near the shaft because he knew that if he did he might get caught.
The only witness to the accident was the plaintiff. He testified that he drew himself up to the plank walk at about ten minutes past seven after the machinery was started, and oiled the boxes along the shaft to the south end of the building; he walked back and when a couple of feet from the first box started to come down; he had not used any waste, but had some pushed down in his pocket, without any ends hanging out.
The action was at common law. The declaration alleged that the defendant was negligent, (1) 'in setting the plaintiff to work in a dangerous and unsafe place, of which danger the defendant knew and the plaintiff was ignorant'; and (2) in 'failing to give the plaintiff reasonably safe and proper instructions.' A verdict for the defendant was directed by the court.
This is a harsh case but we are unable to distinguish it in principle from the numerous ones already decided in this commonwealth concerning injuries to employés caused by revolving shafting. The danger that the plaintiff's person or clothing or the waste in his overalls pocket might come in contact with the open and visible shaft, while he was getting down from the plank walk nearby, was an obvious one. It was attendant upon the use of machinery of a permanent character as it existed when the plaintiff entered into his contract...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goulding v. Eastern Bridge & Structural Co.
...210 Mass. 5296 N.E. 71GOULDINGv.EASTERN BRIDGE & STRUCTURAL CO.Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.Oct. 17, Exceptions from Superior Court, Worcester County; Henry A. King, Judge. Action by William Goulding against the Eastern Bridge & Structural Company. Verdict for defendan......