Probert v. Phipps

• Citation: 21 N.E. 370,149 Mass. 258
• Parties: PROBERT v. PHIPPS et al.
• Decision Date: 11 May 1889
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

149 Mass. 258

21 N.E. 370

PROBERT

v.PHIPPS et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

May 11, 1889.

Exceptions from superior court, Middlesex county; ROBERT R. BISHOP, Judge.

Action by Norman B. Probert against Walter T. Phipps and others, to recover for injuries sustained while in defendants' employ. On the trial plaintiff testified that he began to work for defendants when about 15 years old, and his duty was to manage two silk-filling machines which stood side by side, with just space enough between them to admit passing through. They ran by steam-power, communicated by belts at their sides, which he threw off when he wished to stop them for the purpose of putting more silk in, and put on again when he wished to start them, having to pass between the machines to do so. Three weeks after he began work, in passing between the machines to adjust the belts, a portion of the gearing which projected, and which was revolving rapidly caught his trousers, and severely injured him. He had never worked on machinery until he commenced attending these machines, and there was no boxing to protect the gearing. When he commenced work the foreman told him to be careful and not get caught, but did not tell him in what the danger consisted, and turned him over for further instruction to another boy, with whom he worked a few days, and then assisted another boy to run the machines, by one of which he was injured, for a time, when he was given sole charge. Other men told him to be careful not to get caught. He had worked in dangerous places, but not with machinery, and knew that there was danger in revolving machinery, if he got too near. He knew that there was danger in stooping down to stop or start the machines, as he was forced to do, and tried to guard against it, and took his usual precaution at the time he was injured. The machine was exhibited before the jury, and worked by plaintiff, to show the cause of the accident. Before moving the slide which shifted the belt from the fast pulley to the loose one, to stop the machine, it was necessary to remove a pin which secured the slide. This plaintiff did not do while working the machine before the jury, and the court ruled that his inability to move it without stooping or going between the projecting gearings could not be inferred from the machine and the exhibition of its workings; and to the refusal of the court to consider it plaintiff excepted. A verdict was directed for defe...