O'keefe v. Brownell
| Decision Date | 29 March 1892 |
| Citation | 30 N.E. 479,156 Mass. 131 |
| Parties | O'KEEFE v. BROWNELL et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
F.V. Fuller and F.B. Byram, for plaintiff.
It is unnecessary to consider whether the notice was good, since upon the evidence the plaintiff has no right of action under either count of his declaration. The duty of securing the tool by the fall of which the plaintiff's intestate was injured, so that, when in use for the purpose for which it was employed at the time of the accident, it would not be liable to fall, was not a duty of superintendence. If the use then made of it constituted, with its surroundings, a defect in "ways, works, and machinery," the defect arose solely from the negligent use of the tool by fellow-workmen of the plaintiff's intestate, and did not arise from the negligence of the defendants, or of any person in their service, intrusted with the duty of seeing that the ways works, and machinery were in proper condition. It was not negligence for the defendants not to have discovered and remedied it by themselves or others. The accident was occasioned by the fall of a heavy truck through an opening in a floor upon the plaintiff's intestate, while the truck was in use by his fellow-workmen in landing upon the floor of the story above him heavy planks hoisted by a block and fall. The truck consisted of a plank some four feet long and a foot or more wide, across one surface of which, near its center was attached an iron roller revolving freely upon an axis held to the side of the plank, by suitable bearings. When placed upon the floor with the roller down, the instrument could be easily moved about with a load resting upon the plank. When placed with the plank down, the instrument was intended to remain stationary, and beams or planks could then be moved by resting them upon the roller, and moving them while so supported. The truck was in use in the latter method when the accident occurred. It was a movable tool, designed and adapted for various uses, and in different places about the building. It was complete, and in good order, and only dangerous as any heavy object is dangerous, if carelessly allowed to fall from above upon a person below. When used for certain purposes, for which it was, among others, designed, it would have a tendency to be displaced by the motion of the articles put upon it, to facilitate the motion of which its roller was designed and adapted to be used while...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Geloneck v. Dean Steam Pump Co.
...the present case from Ashley v. Hart, 147 Mass. 573, 18 N.E. 416; and from O'Connor v. Neal, 153 Mass. 281, 26 N.E. 857; O'Keefe v. Brownell, 156 Mass. 131, 30 N.E. 479; Beauregard v. Construction Co., 160 Mass. 201, N.E. 555; and from Carroll v. Willcut, 163 Mass. 221, 39 N.E. 1016. An emp......
-
Trim v. Fore River Ship Bldg. Co.
... ... their hands, in which event the defendant would not be ... liable. O'Keefe v. Brownell, 156 Mass. 131, 30 ... N.E. 479; Fay v. Wilmarth, 183 Mass. 71, 66 N.E ... 410. The suggestion that the angle iron may have been left ... upon ... ...
-
Burns v. Merchants' & Planters' Oil Co.
...to and discussed by the author in Bailey, Mast. Liab. p. 128 et seq. The latest case cited from Massachusetts is O'Keefe v. Brownell, 156 Mass. 131, 30 N. E. 479, but Johnson v. Towboat Co., 135 Mass. 209, 46 Am. Rep. 458, is the leading case in support of the doctrine. A distinction is mad......
-
Gunn v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co.
...for doing the work that was carried on there. It was assumed in Geloneck v. Pump Co., 165 Mass. 202, 43 N.E. 85, and O'Keefe v. Brownell, 156 Mass. 131, 30 N.E. 479, that similar appliances constituted parts of the ways, and machinery. We think, also, that there was evidence that it was def......