King v. Gardiner, Beardsell & Co.

• Decision Date: 04 June 1912
• Citation: 76 N.H. 442,83 A. 806
• Parties: KING v. GARDINER, BEARDSELL & CO.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

83 A. 806

76 N.H. 442

KING

v. GARDINER, BEARDSELL & CO.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Hillsborough.

June 4, 1912.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Hillsborough County; Chamberlin, Judge.

Action by Frank E. King against Gardiner, Beardsell & Co. Verdict was for plaintiff, and defendants except. Exceptions overruled.

Case for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff while in the defendants' employment, and alleged to have been caused by their negligence. Trial by jury, and verdict for the plaintiff. Transferred from the superior court on defendants' exceptions to the denial of their motions for a nonsuit and the direction of a verdict in their favor.

Doyle & Lucier, of Nashua, for plaintiff.

Branch & Branch, of Manchester, for defendants.

BINGHAM, J. In this action the plaintiff complains that he was injured while in the defendants' employment, through their negligence in providing him with a machine for cutting out shoe heels that was not equipped with a spring to prevent the power hammer, which drove the die that cut the leather, from repeating and coming down when his foot was not upon the treadle, and when he was adjusting the die in the usual manner preparatory to cutting the leather. There was a verdict for the plaintiff. The contention of the defendants is that there was no evidence from which it could be found that they were negligent and that the plaintiff was in the exercise of due care.

It appeared that it was customary to equip machines like the one in question with a spring, to obviate the likelihood of its repeating a blow when the operative was adjusting the die upon the leather; that the machine upon which the plaintiff was set to work was not so equipped; that it was the only machine of the kind the plaintiff had worked upon, and he was ignorant of the necessity for the spring; that, while a man of long experience might with reasonable safety operate the machine without a spring, it was dangerous to permit a person of no greater experience than the plaintiff was shown to have had to do so. It also appeared that the die, upon being struck by the power hammer, often stuck in the wooden block on which the leather was placed, requiring the operative to strike it with his hand to enable him to remove and reset the die; that in so doing his thumb would pass over the arm or top of the die; that this was what the plaintiff was doing when the machine repeated, and caught his thumb between the die and the hammer; that, while the...