Meagher v. Crawford Laundry MaCh. Co.
| Decision Date | 04 April 1905 |
| Citation | 187 Mass. 586,73 N.E. 853 |
| Parties | MEAGHER v. CRAWFORD LAUNDRY MACH. CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Noble & Davis, for plaintiff.
Carver & Blodgett, for defendant.
This is an action of tort to recover for personal injuries received while in the employ of the defendant by reason of a boring bar slipping off a truck on which it was being moved, thereby causing the handle of the truck suddenly to fly around and strike the plaintiff. The declaration contained three counts. The first and second alleged that the plaintiff was injured either by a defect in the truck due to the negligence of the defendant, or the negligence of a person intrusted by it with superintendence over the moving of the bar, while the third charged the cause of the accident to be negligence of a person intrusted with and exercising superintendence, or whose sole and principal duty was that of superintendence. Under the rulings given at the trial, the counts for a defective truck need not be considered, as the case was submitted to the jury on the third count, who returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
The defendant's exceptions, as presented at the argument, are really two, and we consider them in the order of their presentation:
It had become necessary to move a large iron tool, called a 'boring bar,' which was some 8 or 10 feet long by 10 inches in diameter, and used by the defendant in its business, from the premises of a tenant on the same floor of the building, to those of the defendant, where it was to be used. For this purpose a truck 4 feet or more in length, with two wheels in front, and having legs like an ordinary shipping truck behind, was used as a means of conveyance. After the bar was loaded by the plaintiff and two of his fellow workmen, under instructions from one Holmes, another employé, and while in transit, but before reaching that part of the building occupied by the defendant, the truck sank into the floor, which was rough and uneven, and they were unable to move it further. As they were endeavoring to start the truck, one Burgquist, the superintendent of the defendant, appeared; and it could have been found, although the witnesses differed as to the form of expression, that he inquired of Holmes, whom he had ordered to do the work, and who up to this time had directed the moving of the bar An attempt had been made previously to move the truck by attaching a rope to the axle, and, a further effort having failed, the superintendent then took charge after which it was moved forward about 15 feet, when it again stuck. There was evidence from which it could have been found, although denied by him, that the superintendent then took a piece of board, and, using it as a lever, endeavored to lift one of the wheels out of the depression, and that his action caused the truck to lurch and the bar to fall. While passing from the truck to the floor, the bar struck and turned the handle causing the plaintiff's injuries. Nor is it any the less an act of superintendence on his part that he continued to use the means employed by the men who were then engaged in carrying out his original order, than if from the beginning he had supervised the operation, as he had full authority to go on with the work, or get a suitable truck, or employ some other adequate way to move the bar. To move a heavy and long bar of iron,...
To continue reading
Request your trial