Lemoine v. Aldrich

• Decision Date: 19 October 1900
• Citation: 177 Mass. 89,58 N.E. 178
• Parties: LEMOINE v. ALDRICH.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

177 Mass. 89

58 N.E. 178

LEMOINE v. ALDRICH.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

October 19, 1900

COUNSEL

B. W. Potter and T. L. Brown, for plaintiff.

H Parker and C. C. Milton, for defendant.

OPINION

KNOWLTON J.

Across a doorway between two rooms in the defendant's blanket mill ran a revolving iron shaft at a height of four feet above the floor, so placed that in passing from one of the rooms to the other it was necessary to stoop. The plaintiff knew that the shafting operated the lumpers, and that when the mill was running the shafting was turning, and at the time of the accident he knew that the mill was running. He had to pass through the door many times a day,--more than two or three times an hour. He was set to work at sweeping up from the floor material that came from one of the lumpers and carrying it away in a sheet upon his shoulder, and emptying it upstairs. He had been engaged in this work 11 days when, returning with an empty sheet upon his arm and passing under the shaft, the sheet was caught by the shaft, and he was drawn around it, and severely injured. The shaft was a part of the permanent construction of the building and machinery, open and visible to everybody who came there when the plaintiff entered the defendant's service. Under a familiar rule, established by many decisions, the defendant owed the plaintiff no duty to change the construction and arrangement of his mill and machinery in those parts which were in good repair and plainly visible when the plaintiff made his contract to work there. It was one of the implied terms of the contract between the parties that the work should be done in that mill with the construction and permanent arrangements for the business which then appeared. Coombs v. Cordage Co., 102 Mass. 572, 585; Rooney v. Cordage Co., 161 Mass 159, 36 N.E. 789; Gleason v. Smith, 172 Mass. 50, 51 N.E. 460. There is nothing in this case which indicates that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty to instruct or warn him in regard to the danger of getting his clothing or the sheet caught while passing under the revolving shaft. The plaintiff was 22 years of age, and the defendant had no reason to suppose that he needed warning of this danger. Ciriack v. Mills Co., 146 Mass. 190, 15 N.E. 579; Id., 151 Mass. 152-156, 23 N.E. 829, 6 L. R. A. 733; Carey v. Railroad Co., 158 Mass. 228, 33 N.E. 112; Ruchinsky v. French, 168 Mass. 70, 46 N.E....