Quigley v. Thomas G. Plant Co.

• Decision Date: 29 February 1896
• Citation: 43 N.E. 205,165 Mass. 368
• Parties: QUIGLEY v. THOMAS G. PLANT CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

165 Mass. 368

43 N.E. 205

QUIGLEY v. THOMAS G. PLANT CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Essex.

February 29, 1896

COUNSEL

H.F. Hurlburt and E.T. McCarthy, for plaintiff.

William H. Moody and Joseph E. Pearl, for defendant.

OPINION

FIELD C.J.

This is an action of tort for personal injuries. The plaintiff, at the time of receiving his injuries, was between 25 and 26 years of age, and for about two years before he went to work for the defendant had worked upon a machine known as the "Bresnahan Dieing-Out (or Dinking) Machine," which was a machine in common use in the shoe factories in Lynn and was similar to the machine on which he was injured except that this machine had a tin guard placed over a part of the counter shaft. The plaintiff was a workman whose business it was to cut out soles upon the machine by placing his foot upon a treadle, thereby causing the head block of the machine to come down upon a die and cut the soles in shape. He was known as the "head dinker" in the factory. The defendant is a corporation, and for a long time before the accident had been engaged in the manufacture of shoes in Lynn. The plaintiff entered into the employ of the defendant in July, 1891, and at that time this guard was on the machine, having been placed there by the defendant. The plaintiff continued in the employ of the defendant until he was injured. He was injured on March 30, 1894, by a piece of leather falling from the die into the space between the collar on the counter shaft and the hub of the loose pulley thereby preventing the loose and the fixed pulleys from separating from each other when his foot was removed from the treadle, and thus causing the head block to repeat, and come down on the hands of the plaintiff, which were on the die engaged in removing a sole and the scraps of leather cut from it. The contention of the plaintiff is that the placing of the guard upon the machine increased the risk of operating the machine; that it was not an obvious risk; that, by reason of the guard's being placed on the machine, it was defective; that the guard, as attached, furnished a place on which scraps of leather would rest, instead of falling on the floor, or being thrown off by the revolutions of the counter shaft and the pulley; and that, if such a guard had been properly placed upon the machine, or if no guard had been placed upon it, the accident would not have happened. There was a window behind the machine, through which there was a good light, and the plaintiff had frequently oiled and cleaned the machine, and the guard was in plain...