Lintott v. Nashua Iron & Steel Co.

Decision Date28 July 1899
Citation69 N.H. 628,44 A. 98
CourtNew Hampshire Supreme Court
PartiesLINTOTT v. NASHUA IRON & STEEL CO.

Exceptions from Hillsboro county.

Action by Annie Lintott, administratrix, against the Nashua Iron & Steel Company. A nonsuit was ordered, and plaintiff excepts. Exceptions sustained.

Case, for negligence causing the death of the intestate, John Lintott. Trial by jury. The testimony tended to prove the following facts: The defendants are manufacturers of car axles and heavy forgings. They have several shops containing blast furnaces, trip hammers and other machinery operated by power transmitted by means of shafting, pulleys, and belts. John Lintott, while in the defendants' employ, was killed, February 24, 1898. He was nearly 22 years old, and of average mental capacity. In the afternoon of that day, by direction of the defendants' superintendent, he was assisting one McQuade at his work at a lathe in the northeasterly corner of the west hammer shop. One of the belts, upon which the lathe depended for the transmission of power, parted, and it became necessary to lace the ends together. In a southerly direction from the lathe there was a shaft, 4 inches in diameter, running from a point near the easterly end of the shop, and 17 feet 8 inches above the floor, towards the west. There were five fixed iron pulleys upon the shaft, each having a hub and rim with spokes between. The first pulley, counting from the east, was 18 inches in diameter and 16 inches wide, the second 34 inches in diameter and 16 inches wide, the third and fifth 42 inches in diameter and 9 inches wide, and the fourth 7 inches in diameter and 8 inches wide. The distance between the third and fourth pulleys was 14 inches, and between the fourth and fifth, an inch, more or less; the distance between the inside faces of the third and fifth being 21 inches. The second pulley was secured to the shaft by a spline, and the third and fourth by two set screws inserted through each end of the hub at a distance of about an inch inside the face of the pulley. The screws were on one side of the hub, and about four inches apart, and had heads seven-eighths of an inch square, which projected one inch above the surface of the hub. Belts six inches in width ran from the third and fifth pulleys in a southerly direction to a blower used in connection with a furnace. A belt 3 1/2 inches wide ran from the fourth pulley in a northerly direction to a pulley on a counter shaft, from which power was taken to run the lathe, and this was the belt that parted. A platform about 3 1/2 feet wide was suspended by iron rods from the timbers above, at a distance of 2 feet 8 inches below the shaft, for use when oiling the bearings, repairing the belts, etc. The means of lighting the building and the obstructions to the passage of light were such, and there was so much smoke and dust in the air, that it was "pretty dark" at and in the vicinity of this line of shafting. When the shaft was in motion, the set screws in the pulleys could not be seen from the floor of the building, and it is doubtful if they could be seen from the platform. About 3 o'clock in the afternoon Lintott went upon the platform, by direction of McQuade, to assist one Cullen (whose duty it was to mend belts, and who had previously been upon the plat form for that purpose several times) in lacing the belt that had parted. Lintott had never been there before, nor, so far as appeared, had he ever assisted in such work. In obedience to Cullen's direction, he stood upon the platform opposite the fourth pulley about 2 1/2 feet from the shaft, facing the third pulley, and held one end of the belt with his right hand in such a manner that it formed a loop around the shaft 7 or 8 inches wide about midway of the 14-inch space between the third and fourth pulleys. The belt passed from Lintott's hand to Cullen, who sat at Lintott's feet near the northerly edge of the platform, with his feet hanging down, and his back towards the third pulley, and was lacing the ends of the belt together. The shafting and pulleys were in motion, making about 225 revolutions in a minute. The only special directions given to Lintott were "to hold the heft of the belt off the shaft" and to "be sure and hold it on the plain piece of shaft,"—that is, the 14 inches between the third and fourth pulleys. Cullen testified that the belt might touch the shaft without danger, if its weight was kept from the shaft; but, if not, the belt was liable to "crawl" lengthwise of the shaft. Three or four minutes after they had taken their positions, the belt was suddenly drawn from Cullen's hands, and Lintott was snatched from the platform, carried around the shaft, and killed. The belt was wound around the hub of the third pulley, inside, over, and outside the set screws on the end towards the place where Lintott stood, and around the adjacent shafting. A piece of cloth torn from Lintott's clothing was found in the coils of the belt around the shaft. Lintott had been in the employ of the defendants, off and on, 3 or 3 1/2 years, with the exception of a period of 9 to 12 months prior to March, 1897, during which, and also prior to his employment by the defendants, he worked upon a farm. The first year or two he worked in the yard, shoveling coal, assisting teamsters in handling heavy articles, and doing other work of a similar kind. After this he was "gate boy" for a large trip hammer in the east hammer shop, used in welding scraps of iron together to form large bars. A lever controlled the transmission of power to the hammer, and his duty was to move the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • McLaine v. Head &, Dowst Co.
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • April 1, 1902
    ...H. 287, 30 Atl. 344; Collins v. Car Co., 68 N. H. 196, 38 Atl. 1047; Burnham v. Railroad, 69 N. H. 280, 45 Atl. 563; Lintott v. Steel Co., 69 N. H. 628, 632, 44 Atl. 98; Bennett v. Warren, 70 N. H. 564, 568, 49 Atl. Attention has been called to decisions of the supreme court of the United S......
  • Galvin v. Pierce
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • April 7, 1903
    ...344, and it cannot be reconciled with views expressed in Jaques v. Company, 66 N. H. 482, 22 Atl. 552, 13 L. R. A. 824; Lintott v. Company, 69 N. H. 628, 632, 44 Atl. 98; and Lapelle v. Company, 71 N. H. 346, 349, 51 Atl. 1068. If it finds any countenance in McLaine v. Head & Dowst Co., 71 ......
  • Hamel v. NewMkt. Mfg. Co.
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • November 7, 1905
    ...N. H. 308, 48 Atl. 286; Whitcher v. Railroad, 70 N. H. 242. 46 Atl. 740; Leazotte v. Railroad, 70 N. H. 5, 45 Atl. 1084; Lintott v. Company, 69 N. H. 628, 44 Atl. 98. The defendants contend that Kelley was negligent when he removed the caps, and that it conclusively appears that his neglige......
  • Cassidy v. Atl. Corp.
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • June 1, 1920
    ...error in submitting the question of assumed risk to the jury. Demars v. Glen Mfg. Co., 67 N. H. 404, 40 Atl. 902; Lintott v. Nashua Iron & Steel Co., 69 N. H. 628, 44 Atl. 98; Whitcher v. Railroad, 70 N. H. 242, 46 Atl. 740; Lapelle v. Paper Co., 71 N. H. 346, 349, 51 Atl. 1068; Slack v. Ca......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT