Mooney v. Connecticut River Lumber Co.

• Decision Date: 22 September 1891
• Citation: 154 Mass. 407,28 N.E. 352
• Parties: MOONEY v. CONNECTICUT RIVER LUMBER CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

154 Mass. 407

28 N.E. 352

MOONEY

v.CONNECTICUT RIVER LUMBER CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Hampshire.

Sept. 22, 1891.

Exceptions from superior court, Hampshire county; CHARLES P. THOMPSON, Judge.

Action by Henry Mooney against the Connecticut River Lumber Company for personal injuries sustained by him while engaged in running a carriage in defendant's saw-mill, by which logs were moved up to a saw. It was plaintiff's duty to work the lever by which motion was communicated to the carriage, and also to change the saws when necessary; and while performing the latter duty upon the order of defendant's foreman, the carriage started up and ran over him. Defendant asked the following instructions, which were refused: “(1) If the evidence fails to furnish satisfactory grounds for an inference, or for anything better than a mere conjecture, as to the cause of the starting of the car, plaintiff cannot recover. (2) If it does not appear from the evidence what was the real cause of the starting of the machine, plaintiff cannot recover.” Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant excepts. Exceptions overruled.J.B. O'Donnell and Robinson & Robinson, for plaintiff.

W.G. Bassett, for defendant.

KNOWLTON, J.

There was evidence that the carriage of the sawing-machine started up and injured the plaintiff when it was left at rest with the steam shut off, and the lever locked which was used to start and stop it. It was an undisputed fact that a machine which would do that was improperly constructed, or improperly adjusted, and unsafe. There was evidence that the defendant's foreman knew several days before the accident that the machine had “run away” or started up when no one was near it. The jury were warranted in finding that the defendant was negligent in not seeing that it was properly constructed and adjusted, so as to be safe when it was originally put in position, or in not discovering its dangerous condition and making it safe before the accident. Moynihan v. Hills Co., 146 Mass. 586, 16 N.E.Rep. 574; Myers v. Iron Co., 150 Mass. 125, 22 N.E.Rep. 631. It was a question for the jury whether the plaintiff was in the exercise of due care. He was in the performance of his duty in a place which ought to have been safe. Although he knew that the machine had “run away” before, it had worked perfectly for the last three days before the accident, and there was evidence that the foreman had told him that it had been repaired. The defendant's last...