Roberts v. Vroom

• Decision Date: 25 May 1912
• Citation: 98 N.E. 687,212 Mass. 168
• Parties: ROBERTS v. VROOM et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

212 Mass. 168

98 N.E. 687

ROBERTS v. VROOM et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 25, 1912

COUNSEL

Daggett & Jefferson and Garland & Berenson, all of Boston, for plaintiff.

Peabody Arnold, Batchelder & Luther, all of Boston, for defendant.

OPINION

BRALEY J.

The plaintiff while at work for the defendants suffered personal injuries by the breaking of a derrick boom, and no contention is made as to his due care, or that the verdict on all the evidence was unwarranted, but they ask for a new trial on the ground of alleged errors in the admission of evidence. At the place of the fracture it was abundantly shown, that the inside of the boom was permeated with dry rot, or as described by the defendant's superintendent, the wood had become dead, but not rotten. The distinction is immaterial. If either rotten or dead, the jury could say, that the boom had lost its tensile strength, and had become unsound. The jury had before them the evidence of the plaintiff's mechanical expert, whose qualifications were not questioned that there was a general custom among contractors to examine second hand derricks before they are used, to ascertain if they were rotten, cracked or 'crimped,' by tapping with a hammer, or boring with a small bit. If there is rotten or unsound wood the character of the resonance caused by the blow, or the appearance of the chips will disclose its condition. When they came to consider the evidence of the only defendant who testified, the jury could have found, that the derrick was purchased from a dealer in second hand derricks, and if no inquiry was made as to its age, this defendant knew that after several month's use on but one building it had been stored for eight or nine years, and that with knowledge of these circumstances, and relying on such information as could be obtained from visual inspection, it was used without any further examination to test its soundness. They were bound to provide reasonably safe appliances for the use of the plaintiff and his fellow workmen, and their duty had not been performed if by the exercise of due diligence this defective conditon could have been ascertained and remedied. The admission in evidence on the price which they paid does not appear to have harmed the defendants as there was no proof of the cost of a new derrick. McGonigle v. Belleisle, 186 Mass. 310, 312 71 N.E. 569; Scalpen v. Blanchard, 187 Mass. 73, 72 N.E....