Neagle v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co.
| Decision Date | 22 May 1913 |
| Citation | 101 N.E. 976,214 Mass. 472 |
| Parties | NEAGLE v. NEW YORK, N.H. & H. R. CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Jas F. Creed and John J. Mansfield, both of Boston, for plaintiff.
Frank W. Knowlton and Samuel Vaughan, both of Boston, for defendant.
The plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a freight handler and at the time of the accident was engaged in loading freight from the freight house into cars. There were four tracks laid parallel with the house, and in carrying the freight to the cars upon the outer tracks the course of business was to use the intervening cars as a bridge. Skids or riseboards as they are sometimes called, were placed from the house to the first car and between cars on the intervening tracks. The plaintiff was directed to assist in loading a car upon the fourth track, and in obedience to the direction, while he with one Donovan, a fellow workman, was propelling a heavily loaded freight truck over the skid connecting the car upon the second track with the car upon the third, the skid gave way, the truck and both men were precipitated to the ground and the plaintiff was injured.
Skids commonly are used in the way above described in the freight yard of the defendant. They are made of wood, some of them are bolted with iron, and on each end is a little flat plate of iron. They vary in width from 2 1/2 to 4 feet, and in length from 2 to 6 feet, and as needed they are carried around from place to place in the yard, and where necessary they are steadied by cleats to prevent them from slipping. In the present case one O'Brien, a fellow servant of the plaintiff, did the cleating. It did not appear that the plaintiff, before the accident, had any particular knowledge of this skid or of the manner in which it was cleated. It was contended by him that the skid broke, but there was at the most only a mere scintilla of evidence in support of this contention. The evidence on the contrary is overwhelmingly in favor of the view as maintained by the defendant, that the fall was due to slipping by reason of the weakness of the cleating.
But whichever theory be adopted it is plain that the plaintiff had no case on the counts at common law. There was no evidence that the defendant had failed to provide suitable skids and suitable material for cleats and enough nails and other appliances properly to fasten the skids. The safety of the plaintiff was dependent on the temporary adjustment of instrumentalities in the course of the work. In such a case the matter of this adjustment being left to the workmen the defendant is not answerable at common law for the negligence of a fellow workman, even though he be a...
To continue reading
Request your trial