Little v. Hyde Park Elec. Light Co.
| Citation | 77 N.E. 716,191 Mass. 386 |
| Parties | LITTLE v. HYDE PARK ELECTRIC LIGHT CO. |
| Decision Date | 03 April 1906 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
Jas E. Cotter, Conrad Reno, and Jos. P. Fagan, for plaintiff.
Henry F. Hurlburt and Damon E. Hall, for defendants.
The plaintiff's case was that the spike in question was not a suitable spike for the purpose for which it was used, and that it was not properly driven into the pole. But in testifying that the superintendent promised a year before the accident to take out all driven spikes, and substitute screw spikes, the plaintiff admitted that he knew that driven spikes were then in the poles. It is true that he did not admit that he knew that driven spikes of the kind in question were in use, and there was evidence that they were more dangerous than beveled driven spikes. But he admitted in terms that 'steps getting loose was not an infrequent occurrence during my time of employment,' and 'I would tell a step was loose by the feeling of it when I took hold of it, I suppose.'
The rest of the evidence touching on the plaintiff's due care is as follows: The plaintiff had been in the defendant's employ as a lamp trimmer for 11 years. As such it was his duty to climb each post belonging to the defendant (at the time of the accident there were 139) every other day, except on moonlight nights, and on those every three to five days. When the plaintiff's time was not wholly taken up trimming the lamps because there was a moon, he worked as a lineman in making repairs, including taking down and setting up poles. In that connection he had seen holes bored for spikes and new spikes put into poles, although in his testimony he did not admit that he personally had bored more than one hole for the driving of a spike, or had driven more than that one spike for which he had bored the hole. He testified that it was his duty to make a daily report on a blank furnished by the defendant for the purpose, and that one of the headings on this blank was: 'The following repairs are needed on the circuit.' He also testified that it was his duty to put upon that blank anything that might be seen to be needing repairs. He further testified that if he found a pole where a step was loose which he could not repair himself (although he did not think he ever had been told to do it) he thought he ought to report it and he did report it.
One of the plaintiff's...
To continue reading
Request your trial