Reynolds v. Merchant's Woolen Co.

• Decision Date: 22 May 1897
• Citation: 168 Mass. 501,47 N.E. 406
• Parties: REYNOLDS v. MERCHANTS' WOOLEN CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

168 Mass. 501

47 N.E. 406

REYNOLDS v. MERCHANTS' WOOLEN CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 22, 1897

COUNSEL

E.B. Callender, for plaintiff.

John Lowell, Jr., and L.A. Frothingham, for defendant.

OPINION

BARKER J.

It is conceded that the plaintiff was in the exercise of due care and that he was hurt by the flying apart of the cylinder of a dusting machine in use in the mill where he was employed. The machine had been recently purchased of a reputable manufacturer of machinery. It had no iron bands around its cylinder, and such bands would have tended to keep it from bursting, and were in use on other dusting machines in the mill. There was also evidence tending to show that the cause of the accident was the existence of blow holes in the iron arms which formed part of the cylinder, and that no inspection could have detected the presence of the blow holes.

The only exception argued upon the plaintiff's brief was one taken at the conclusion of the charge, and was then stated by counsel to be "to the part of the charge which related to the statement by the court that, of itself, the fact of any accident after the machine was set to work was not of itself evidence of negligence." The bill of exceptions shows that no statement was made by the court that the fact of the accident was not of itself evidence of negligence. We suppose, therefore, that the exception was intended to be directed to that part of the charge in which the court, after stating that the fact that the machine broke down was competent evidence, as showing that it was in a defective condition, so that it could not safely be used for the purposes for which it was brought into the mill, continued in these words: "But it does not of itself show that the plaintiff can maintain this action against this corporation. There must have been the injury, of course, or the action cannot be maintained; but you are not, as matter of law justified in finding, because this machine, put into this mill, it is now conceded, within a comparatively short time,--two or three weeks,--broke down when it was being used in the way it was intended it should be used, of itself shows such a condition of things as to subject this corporation to liability in damages. And you will see why that is so when you come to consider what the rule of law is upon which the plaintiff relies in support of the action, and within which he must bring himself." Then, after stating that the plaintiff, as an employé, assumed certain risks, and that the law imposed upon the defendant, as his employer certain duties, the only one of which the jury needed to consider "was the duty of using reasonable care to provide suitable machinery with which and upon which the plaintiff, if himself careful, might work in safety," and that, to maintain the action, the plaintiff must show that there was a failure on the part of the defendant, in the performance of the duty, to use reasonable care to provide suitable machinery, and must show that it did not use reasonable care to provide this particular machine, the charge continued: "It cannot be said, gentlemen, as a matter of law, that this corporation would be responsible for the failure to use proper care on the part of the manufacturer of the machine. It is not true that this corporation was required to manufacture all the *** different kinds of machinery used in an establishment of this sort. It may go into the market, and buy its machinery, and, if the machine is bought of a reputable maker,--in other words, if reasonable care is used in selecting the maker,--and then reasonable care is used upon the delivery of a machine in inspecting it, in setting it up, in putting it in operation, it cannot be said that the defendant, or an employer, would be liable in such a case, although it might clearly appear, later on, that the maker of that machine was careless, and put in improper materials, or did imperfect and improper work. The law does not make the employer...