L'Houx v. Union Const. Co.
| Citation | 107 Me. 101,77 A. 636 |
| Parties | L'HOUX v. UNION CONST. CO. |
| Decision Date | 22 September 1910 |
| Court | Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US) |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
On Motion from Supreme Judicial Court, Androscoggin County.
Action by Edward L'Houx against the Union Construction Company. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant moves for a new trial. Motion sustained.
The plaintiff claimed that the injuries were caused by reason of a defective cold chisel, furnished by the defendant, and which he (the plaintiff) undertook to use, under the direction and with the assistance of an agent of the defendant, for the purpose of cutting an iron pipe of the defendant, and that in the course of the operation the chisel broke and a piece of the same flew into his eye, causing the injuries complained of. Plea, the general issue. Verdict for plaintiff for $2,000. The defendant then filed a general motion for a new trial.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Argued before EMERY, C. J., and PEABODY, SPEAR, CORNISH, and KING, JJ.
McGillicuddy & Morey, for plaintiff.
Bisbee & Parker and Newell & Skelton, for defendant.
The plaintiff's version of the reception of the injury for which he seeks to recover compensation is substantially as follows: He was in the employ of the defendant company in the construction of a system of waterworks for supplying a town with water, etc., and while in such employ a Mr. Reed, whom the plaintiff supposed to have authority, and who appeared to have authority, from the defendant to do so, came to the plaintiff at the toolhouse, selected a small steel "cold chisel" and a seven-pound striking hammer, and directed the plaintiff to take those tools and go with him to cut off some iron pipe. The plaintiff did so without objection. On reaching the place, Mr. Reed held the chisel upon the pipe and directed the plaintiff to strike the head of the chisel with the hammer. The plaintiff struck a first blow "not very hard," and then a second blow "pretty near" as hard as he could. As a result of the second blow a fragment broke off the point of the chisel and flew up into his eye.
There was no evidence that the chisel or the hammer was visibly imperfect, or that the chisel was improperly held for the plaintiff to strike upon it, or that the plaintiff was directed to strike so hard. The only proposition upon which the plaintiff bases his claim for compensation is that Reed was negligent in selecting so small a chisel and so heavy a hammer. In answer it is contended by the defendant that the danger of breakage in striking so heavily with such a hammer upon such a chisel placed against an iron pipe was so obvious that the plaintiff must be charged with knowledge of it, that the plaintiff alone was responsible for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mitchell v. Mitchell
...v. Reed, 280 Mass. 514, 182 N.E. 859; Logue v. Grand Trunk Railway Company, 102 Me. 34, 65 A. 522; L'Houx v. Union Construction Company, 107 Me. 101, 77 A. 636, 30 L.R.A., N.S., 800; Hughes v. Hughes, 109 Me. 564, 84 A. In Logue v. Grand Trunk Railway Company, supra, it was held that the te......
-
Ohio Valley Ry. Co. v. Copley
... ... Ladewig, 130 Wis. 566, 110 N.W. 419, 13 ... L.R.A. (N. S.) 684 (hammer); L'Houx v. Union ... Construction Co., 107 Me. 101, 77 A. 636, 30 L.R.A. (N ... S.) 800 (hammer and chisel). In ... ...
-
C., N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co. v. Burton
...104 N. W. 577; Wiggins v. Standard Oil Co., 141 La. 532, 75 Sou. 232; Golden v. Ellis, 104 Me. 177, 71 Atl. 649; Edward L'Houx v. Union Cons. Co., 107 Me. 101, 77 Atl. 636; Rawley v. Collins, 90 Mich. 31, 51 N. W. 350; Wachsmuth v. Shaw Elec. Co., 118 Mich. 275; Dompier v. Lewis, 131 Mich. ......
-
Cincinnati, N.O. & T.P. Ry. Co. v. Burton
...to those presented by this record, and in which every argument used by the appellee's counsel finds a complete answer. In Edward L'Houx v. Union Construction Co., supra, employé was directed to strike a chisel with a hammer, and the claim was made that the tools were not suitable for the pu......