Mcmenimon v. Snow

• Citation: 106 N.E. 863,219 Mass. 231
• Parties: McMENIMON v. SNOW et al.
• Decision Date: 23 November 1914
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

219 Mass. 231

106 N.E. 863

McMENIMON v. SNOW et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Bristol.

November 23, 1914

COUNSEL

J. W. Cummings and

C. R Cummings, both of Fall River, for plaintiff.

Foster R. Greene, of Fall River, for defendant.

OPINION

CROSBY J.

While in the employ of the defendant the plaintiff received personal injuries which he alleges were the result of the negligence of the defendant's superintendent and acting superintendent. The evidence showed that the plaintiff was so injured while assisting in unloading a tool box from a wagon or dray called a 'low gear.' This vehicle is so constructed that its floor or platform is hung between the wheels near to the ground to facilitate the loading and unloading of heavy objects. There was evidence to show that three tool boxes were loaded on the low gear at the freight station in Fall River, and that two of them were so loaded by placing iron rollers under the boxes and rolling them from the floor of the freight station on to the low gear; that they were so loaded by eight men and that this work was done under the direction of the defendant's superintendent, McGonagle. Another employee of the defendant, Farrington, was also present. He was sometimes called the time-keeper, 'who the jury could find was acting as superintendent at the time of the accident in the absence of the superintendent, with the knowledge and consent of the defendant.' The record recites that:

'When the tool boxes were being unloaded, the jury could find that the work was in charge of * * * the time-keeper who was directed by the superintendent McGonagle to take two of the defendant's men and the low gear and the driver and superintend the unloading of the three tool boxes.'

There was further evidence to show that when one of these tool boxes was being unloaded under the direction of Farrington, one end of the box was tipped up, and the plaintiff, in order to help swing the corner of the box around over the wheel, jumped over the wheel and got hold of the box on the sidewalk, when 'the tools in the box, which were placed loosely, shifted, causing Hall and Rock to let go, throwing the box over on the plaintiff, breaking his leg.'

The tool boxes were oblong in shape, 7 1/2 feet long, 3 1/2 feet wide, and 4 1/2 feet high, with a peaked roof or cover. The evidence as to the weight of the box, with its contents, that fell on the plaintiff was conflicting. The plaintiff offered evidence to show that it weighed 1,400 or 1,500 pounds, while the evidence offered by the defendant was that its weight was from 475 to 500 pounds.

The contention of the plaintiff is that the defendant was negligent because of the means adopted in unloading the box, and also because he did not provide a sufficient number of men for the safe performance of the work. All of his exceptions relate to the exclusion of evidence.

1. We think that the proper method of unloading the tool box, even with the tools in it, was a matter about which the jury would not be aided by the opinion of experts. The unloading of such a box from the low gear to the sidewalk would not seem to involve any particular science, trade, or craft, but was a matter of common knowledge so simple and so easily understood that it may be presumed to be within the ordinary experience of men of common...