Jordan v. New England Structural Co.
| Citation | 197 Mass. 43,83 N.E. 332 |
| Parties | JORDAN v. NEW ENGLAND STRUCTURAL CO. (two cases). |
| Decision Date | 01 January 1908 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
Jan. 1 1908.
Blodgett Jones & Burnham, for plaintiffs.
Walter I. Badger, George A Drury, and Wm. Harold Hitchcock, for defendant.
These two cases were brought under the employer's liability act, the first by a minor, to recover damages for personal injuries received through the negligence of the defendant's superintendent, and the second by the minor's father, to recover for loss of services of the son, and for the expenses of his medical attendance rendered necessary by the accident.
In the defendant's shop there was a large crane, estimated to weigh about 20 tons, which passed in and out upon an iron track nearly 20 feet above the ground, which track was supported by girders. The track and girders were taken down and replaced by new ones. While the work was going on and before the old track was entirely removed, the crane ran in and out over that part which was in position, and as soon as the new track was in place and safely supported it began to run in and out occasionally over that. The minor plaintiff was an iron worker. He was sent with another man to put in a bracket underneath the girder, between the pillars that supported it, and in doing the work he stood upon a narrow piece of iron and steadied himself by taking hold of the track above the girder with one hand. His companion went away temporarily, and John Flynn, a foreman who directed the work, came up to take his place, standing in a similar way, with one of his hands holding the rail of the track. The crane came along over the track and cut off the ends of two of the plaintiff's fingers.
There was ample evidence to warrant a finding that Flynn was a superintendent within the meaning of the statute. The jury might well find that it was a part of his duty to warn workmen, who were in exposed positions, of the coming of the crane, if they were where they would not be likely to see it. There was testimony that he had given such warnings repeatedly during the progress of the work. It appeared that the place was very noisy, and that the plaintiff could not hear nor see the approach of the crane while he was working below the girder. His back was towards the crane as it approached, while the superintendent was facing it. There was testimony that the superintendent could have seen the crane as it was coming, although this was disputed. The superintendent was not relieved from the obligation to use due care for the safety of the employés by his taking the place of the plaintiff's companion, temporarily,...
To continue reading
Request your trial