Mutter v. Lawrence Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 15 May 1907
• Parties: MUTTER v. LAWRENCE MFG. CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

195 Mass. 517

81 N.E. 263

MUTTER v. LAWRENCE MFG. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

May 15, 1907

COUNSEL

F. W. & S.E. Qua, for plaintiff.

F. E Dunbar, for defendant.

OPINION

SHELDON J.

The plaintiff contends that although he knew that pulleys were usually fastened to the shaft by means of set screws, and knew that there were set screws about the pulleys on which he was working although he had not actually seen them, and was instinctively trying to avoid them, yet he had not assumed the risk of injury from the set screw in question, because this differed from the kind ordinarily in use, in that it extended above the hub of the pulley a distance of two inches instead of the usual distance of half to three-quarters of an inch or, on large pulleys, an inch above the hub, and an eighth of an inch laterally beyond the line of the rim of the pulley instead of being wholley within that plane--variations which might have been found on the evidence to increase materially the risk of injury from the screw when the shaft was revolving. His counsel admit in argument that if he had received his injury by coming in contact with a set screw of the kind ordinarily in use upon pulleys like the one on which he was working, he must be held to have assumed the risk of such an injury, even though he never had actually seen this particular screw.

But the difficulty with this contention is that the situation character, and projection of this screw were perfectly obvious upon inspection. Apparently the only reason that the plaintiff did not know all these circumstances was that he never had worked upon this shaft except when it was in motion, and never had taken the trouble to look at it at any other time. Indeed he testified that he never saw this screw either before or after the accident, and knew only what had been told him about it. The screw could not be distinguished when the shaft was in rapid motion, although there was no difficulty in seeing it when the shaft was at rest. He knew that there was a set screw here; he knew that the screws in use on the defendant's shafts were not uniform in size, length or extent of projection; and he chose to work upon this pulley without ascertaining any of the particulars that he knew could be readily ascertained when the shaft was at rest, and could not be ascertained when it was revolving rapidly, as might have been found to be the case in Hale v. Cheney, 159 Mass. 268, 34 N.E. 255. The screw had been here for some years. The plaintiff was an experienced man. He had done the same work on this pulley a great many times before. He knew and had in mind the danger of getting his arm caught on this screw, and was instinctively trying to avoid it. He had had full opportunity to examine and acquaint himself with the exact circumstances, the nature, length and angle of projection of the screw which created the danger. All these circumstances were obvious if he had chosen to look for them. Demers v. Marshall, 178 Mass. 9, 59 N.E. 454; Donahue v. Washburn & Moen Mfg. Co., 169 Mass. 574, 48 N.E. 842; Rooney v. Sewall & Day Cordage Co., 161 Mass. 153, 36 N.E. 789. The case is stronger for the defendant than those cases in which the plaintiff did not know of...