Richstain v. Washington Mills Co.
Decision Date | 04 January 1893 |
Citation | 32 N.E. 908,157 Mass. 538 |
Parties | RICHSTAIN v. WASHINGTON MILLS CO. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from superior court, Essex county; JOHN W. HAMMOND, Judge.
Action of tort by Abraham Richstain against the Washington Mills Company for personal injuries. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff excepts. Exceptions overruled.
J.P. Sweeney and H.R. Dow, for plaintiff.
Chas. A. De Courcy and Walter Coulson, for defendant.
It is evident from the account which he gives of his occupations during the interval between his arrival and the date of the accident that the plaintiff had become familiar with the use of machinery. He was 32 years old when injured, and at the time of the trial, which was about a year after the accident, spoke English so as to testify without an interpreter, and was of at least ordinary intelligence. The machine on which he was working was simple in construction and operation. He does not claim that it was out of repair, or wanting in respect to any appliance. He was set to work on the morning of the accident with one Crowley, who was running it, and helped him start it up. After it was started, Crowley went away, saying nothing to the plaintiff, who supposed he would return, though he did not know. The plaintiff knew that the cloth was to be wound or rewound back and forth through the liquor in the bottom of the vat, onto the rollers at the ends of the machine. When the cloth was almost all wound onto the roller on which it was winding when Crowley went away, the plaintiff, without any direction from any one, reversed the motion of the rollers, and attempted to make the loose end of the cloth catch upon the roller at the opposite end, by throwing it over the roller, and tucking the end up under, between the roller and the cloth, as he had seen Crowley do. While doing this, his fingers were caught and his arm drawn in between the roller and cloth, causing the injury complained of.
If we assume that it was a part of the plaintiff's duty to keep the machine going, we still think that the risk, accompanying what he did, was of such a character that, taking his age, intelligence, and experience into account, he might be fairly supposed to understand and appreciate it, and that therefore, neither the defendant nor any of its superintendents were negligent in not warning or instructing him concerning it. Brady v. Manufacturing Co., 154 Mass. 468, 28 N.E.Rep. 901; De Souza v. Stafford...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wilson v. Massachusetts Cotton Mills
... ... 485, 27 N.E. 6; De Souza v ... Stafford Mills, 155 Mass. 476, 30 N.E. 81; Downey v ... Sawyer, 157 Mass. 418, 32 N.E. 654; Richstain v ... Mills Co., 157 Mass. 538, 32 N.E. 908; Rooney v ... Cordage Co., 161 Mass. 153, 160, 36 N.E. 789; Cheney ... v. Middlesex Co., 161 Mass ... ...
-
Rankin v. Brockton Pub. Mkt., Inc.
...bind the defendant; and her statements, made elsewhere than on the witness stand, are not admissible against it. Richstain v. Washington Mills Co., 157 Mass. 538, 32 N. E. 908;Hargreaves v. Keogh Storage Co., 250 Mass. 339, 145 N. E. 456. The result is that the order must be Exceptions ...
-
Gaudet v. Stansfield
... ... Cheney v. Middlesex Co., 161 Mass. 296, 37 N.E. 175, ... and cases cited. Wilson v. Cotton Mills, 169 Mass ... 67, 47 N.E. 506. [65 N.E. 851] The same result is reached in ... another way. The ... to her danger. Leistritz v. Zylonite Co., 154 Mass ... 382, 28 N.E. 294; Richstain v. Mills Co., 157 Mass ... 538, 32 N.E. 908; Connolly v. Eldredge, 160 Mass ... 566, 36 N.E ... ...