Meunier v. Chemical Paper Co.
| Decision Date | 26 November 1901 |
| Citation | 61 N.E. 810,180 Mass. 109 |
| Parties | MEUNIER v. CHEMICAL PAPER CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
J. B. Carroll and W. H. McClintock, for plaintiff.
Brooks & Hamilton, for defendant.
The machine on which the plaintiff was injured was a 'calender paper machine,' so called, which was divided into three sections. The part where he was injured was called a 'No. 6 machine.' There was a space in the frame of the machine 9 inches wide. To the left of this was a wooden roll 8 inches in diameter, called the 'Idler,' which did not move unless paper was passing over it, and was used only on certain kinds of work, and when not in use was taken out of the machine. Five or six inches to the left was a roll 7 inches in diameter, called 'C' in the exceptions. Still further to the left were two press rolls, one above the other; the upper one being 16 inches in diameter, and the lower one 17 inches. These were called in the exceptions 'D' and 'E.' There was a felt which passed over roll C, and thence between the two press rolls. The distance from the floor to the top of the standard in which was the bearing wherein the idler roll revolved was about 4 feet 4 inches. The floor of the machine was about 2 feet above the floor of the room. The plaintiff was about 5 feet 7 inches in height. According to the plaintiff's testimony, the paper, in passing over the 9-inch space, broke and ran down to the floor of the machine; and one Murphy, who was in charge of the room, said to him, 'Why the devil don't you get in there and throw it out?' That he put one hand on the standard of the idler and the other on the next machine, stepped onto the floor of the machine, in the 9-inch space, and then stooped down to pick up the paper. That in getting down he attempted to put one hand on the roll called the 'Idler,' but, as that roll was not in place, he got his hand caught between the felt and roll C, and his hand was carried along and injured between the two press rolls.
The principal question in the case is whether the plaintiff was in the exercise of due care. At the time of the accident the plaintiff was between 20 and 21 years of age. He had been in the defendant's employ 6 weeks. Before that he had been engaged in blacksmithing. He had also worked in an organ factory, and had been a painter. When he first came into the employ of the defendant he worked on a screen at the pulp end of the machine, and was then put to work on the other end of the machine, where the paper was cut by revolving knives into the desired size. While the plaintiff had not worked upon the particular part of the machine where he received his injury he had assisted in taking out and putting in the rolls and in arranging the felt. He testified: From the evidence it appears that the plaintiff was at least of average intelligence, and that he knew the arrangement of the different parts of the machine, and the duties they had to perform. While the plaintiff testified, 'I didn't know that if I got my hand between those rollers I was liable to get hurt,' he also testified, 'I knew that if I put my hand on the felt, and left...
To continue reading
Request your trial