Roughan v. Boston & Lockport Block Co.
| Decision Date | 03 March 1894 |
| Citation | 161 Mass. 24,36 N.E. 461 |
| Parties | ROUGHAN v. BOSTON & LOCKPORT BLOCK CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
H.N. Sheldon, for plaintiff.
Frank E. Fitz, for defendant.
The defendant now concedes that judgment should be entered on the verdict; but the plaintiff contends that he should also recover the sum which he has paid to his servant as compensation for his injury occasioned by the breaking of the block, and this is the only question for decision. That sum was paid without suit, and without communication with the defendant and the plaintiff cannot recover it in this action, whatever warranty there may have been upon the sale to him of the block, unless he was, upon the facts stated in the report himself liable to his servant for the injury; and we are of opinion that he was not so liable, no evidence of negligence or fault on his part towards the servant being shown in the report. The block broke a month or two after it was put in use, in doing the work for which it was designed, while in the ordinary course of wear it should have lasted for years. When the block gave way, it was discovered that there was a flaw, to which, presumably, the breaking was due, and which, before the break, was hidden by other parts of the block. The defendant was an experienced manufacturer of such implements, and the plaintiff had been in the habit of buying blocks of the defendant for years. When this block was ordered, the plaintiff asked for the best coal-hoisting block the defendant had made, and looked through the store and examined the catalogue, and ordered the block which he was assured was the best for the purpose, and it was of a kind which he had used before. When the block gave way, it was being used in the proper and ordinary manner. It is conceded that the servant was not himself in fault, and that he received his injury in the regular discharge of his work. These are all the circumstances stated in the report which bear upon the question whether the plaintiff was liable to his servant, or whether that question ought to have been submitted to the jury. The plaintiff was not under an absolute obligation to his servant that the block should not break. His duty was to use reasonable care to procure and keep safe appliances; and if he discharged his duty in these particulars, and the block gave way without his fault, he was not liable to his servant, who...
To continue reading
Request your trial