Hannan v. American Steel & Wire Co.

• Citation: 78 N.E. 749,193 Mass. 127
• Parties: HANNAN v. AMERICAN STEEL & WIRE CO. OF NEW JERSEY.
• Decision Date: 17 October 1906
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

193 Mass. 127

78 N.E. 749

HANNAN v. AMERICAN STEEL & WIRE CO. OF NEW JERSEY.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

October 17, 1906

COUNSEL

J. W. Sheehan, for plaintiff.

Frank B. Smith, T. H. Gage, Jr., and Frank F. Dresser, for defendant.

OPINION

HAMMOND J.

The plaintiff, who was an experienced workman and had worked on this machine 14 years, testified that 'in rolling when wire is rolled hot, the wire gets twisted sometimes, and then sometimes a kink comes in the wire and I have to step on the treadle to stop the machine. If I do not stop the machine, * * * the kink would go as far as the die, and when it gets to the die of course will break and won't go through, and sometimes it will injury the die' so that repairs have to be made. As to the circumstances of the accident he testified as follows: 'This kink was coming towards the die and I [saw] * * * the wire coming off the reel, and I stepped on the treadle to stop the machine. * * * To save the wire I stepped on the treadle to stop the machine, and I got on both feet using all the exertion I was possessed of to put down the treadle, but the treadle usually went down like a spring board, but this time the bolt which attached the treadle to the leaders broke, and I came on both heels on the floor. * * * I came down on the floor unexpectedly, using all the exertion I could to stop the machine.' On cross-examination he testified, 'I stepped on the treadle first with one foot and then brought up the other and stepped on it. I had to put on one foot before I could put on the other. I then had to jump up and down to force it down. I weigh probably a hundred and fifty-five pounds. While I was jumping the treadle broke.'

It is argued by the defendant that the plaintiff was careless in subjecting the treadle to such a violent and unusual strain as he describes. But there was a necessity for stopping the machine, and we cannot say as matter of law that the plaintiff used unusual or unreasonable force in his attempt. This question was for the jury.

The difficult question is whether there was evidence enough to warrant a finding of negligence on the part of the defendant. The fact that the bolt broke in the manner described from the use for which it was intended (provided the jury found that the plaintiff was using the machine in a reasonable way) was evidence that it was defective and unsafe. The defendant was charged with the duty to exercise reasonable care to keep its machinery in a safe condition for use. The machine had been used 14 years. There is no evidence as to when this belt was put in, or whether it was ever inspected. There was evidence that there was an old flaw at the point of breakage, but as to the nature of the flaw the evidence was somewhat vague and conflicting. One Hickey, called by the plaintiff, testified that he 'saw the ends that were broken. * * * The piece appeared to me a little flaw like, a bit rusty where it broke. The rest appeared pretty fresh. One...