Oswald v. Donahue
| Decision Date | 22 October 1913 |
| Citation | 215 Mass. 574,102 N.E. 925 |
| Parties | OSWALD v. DONAHUE. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
David I. Walsh and Thos. L. Walsh, both of Fitchburg, for plaintiff.
Philip J. O'Connell and John P. Halnon, both of Worcester, for defendant.
DE COURCY, J.
In the course of her employment in the defendant's laundry, and while she was at work on a steam ironing machine known as a mangle, the plaintiff sustained severe injuries by reason of her hand being drawn in between the rolls; and she brought this action to recover damages therefor. The declaration contains counts both at common law and under the employer's liability act, but it is conceded by the plaintiff that the case was submitted to the jury on the common law counts. One of these was for alleged failure properly to instruct and qualify the plaintiff for her duty before putting her to work on a dangerous machine with which she was not acquainted, the other for negligent failure to provide the plaintiff with suitable machinery with which she could perform her duty without being exposed to unnecessary dangers, and to maintain the same in suitable condition and repair. There was a verdict for the plaintiff; and the case is here on the defendant's exception to the judge's refusal to rule that on all the evidence the plaintiff could not recover.
1. It is virtually conceded that there was evidence for the jury on the issue of the defendant's negligence. He had just moved into his new location on Harding street, and there was testimony that the mangle was working irregularly, first running fast and then slow; that the driving belt was moving from one pulley to the other; that there was unusual speed and vibration of the machinery until the pulley on the main shaft was changed after the accident, and that no instructions were given to the plaintiff as to how she was to do her work in safety. This, and other like testimony, if believed, would warrant a finding of negligence.
2. The defense of assumption of risk is not set up in the answer and consequently is not open to the defendant. Leary v William G. Webber Co., 210 Mass. 68, 96 N.E. 136. Aside from the question of pleading, the defendant has the burden of proving this affirmative defense; and where, as here, the danger comes into existence after the contract of employment this issue generally is one of fact for the jury. Fitzgerald v. Connecticut River...
To continue reading
Request your trial