Saxe v. Walworth Mfg. Co.
| Decision Date | 03 April 1906 |
| Citation | 77 N.E. 883,191 Mass. 338 |
| Parties | SAXE v. WALWORTH MFG. CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Jas A. McGeough, for plaintiff.
T Frank Noonan, for defendant.
This was an action brought under Rev. Laws, c. 106, § 71, to recover for personal injuries received by the plaintiff while in the defendant's employ as a brass finisher. It was admitted that a proper notice had been served on the defendant. The plaintiff was at work in the defendant's factory on a piece of brass piping, when an emery wheel which was located within 10 feet of his position and just behind him, exploded, and a piece of the wheel struck him in the back of the head, causing the injuries complained of. This wheel was attached to a spindle, and was revolved at the rate of over 3,000 revolutions a minute, by means of a belt attached to a shaft at the ceiling. These wheels are composed of emery and composition compressed and banked like an ordinary brick. They were kept in quantities in the defendant's stockroom; and whenever one was wanted it was taken from the stockroom and put on the spindle, sometimes by the foreman, sometimes by the man who wanted to use it. A workman who needed a special wheel would put it on for himself, and if he did not find it at the machine would send to the stockroom for it. This wheel was practically a new wheel. It did not appear how much it had been used. A witness for the plaintiff, who had been a foreman for the defendant for 18 years, testified that this must have been a defective wheel, but he could not tell the nature of the defect--it might be cracked, or it might be owing to the bad construction of the wheel; that there must be some defect; that these wheels were not manufactured by the defendant, and he did not know who manufactured this wheel. There was, and had been, no guard on any of the defendant's emery wheels. A guard was used in some places, and would prevent the pieces of an exploding wheel from flying so as to cause such an injury as happened to the plaintiff. At the close of the plaintiff's evidence, the justice of the superior court ordered a verdict for the defendant; and the plaintiff excepts to this ruling.
Two questions in the case can be readily disposed of. No claim is made but that there was evidence which would have warranted a finding that the plaintiff was himself in the exercise of due care. He was in no way responsible own work, and was in no way responsible for the operation, condition, or explosion of the wheel. Meagher v. Crawford Laundry Machinery Co., 187 Mass. 586, 589, 73 N.E. 853; Murphy v. Marston Coal Co., 183 Mass. 385; 67 N.E. 342. On the other hand, the jury would not have had a right to find that the defendant was negligent in not putting a guard over this wheel. No guard ever had been used in the defendant's factory. It was not claimed, and there was no evidence, that the plaintiff was not aware of this fact when he began to work for the defendant; and the defendant owed no duty to him to make any change in this respect. French v. Columbia Spinning Co., 169 Mass. 531, 48 N.E. 269; Ross v. Pearson Cordage Co., 164 Mass. 257, 41 N.E. 284, 49 Am. St. Rep. 459.
The most difficult question is whether there was evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant in furnishing a defective emery wheel. This was practically a new wheel there was evidence that it would not have exploded if there had not been some defect in it; there was nothing to show that the man who was running it was operating it in any respect improperly, or at an excessive rate of speed. The jury might well have found that there was a defect in the wheel, and that the explosion was due to the existence of this defect. There was a duty incumbent on the defendant to see that its machines and all parts of them were in a reasonably safe condition and suitable for the purpose for which they were to be used, so far as this could be done by the exercise of proper care on its part. Murphy v. Marston Coal Co., 183 Mass. 385, 67 N.E. 342; Droney v. Doherty, 186 Mass. 205, 71 N.E. 547; Toy v. United States Cartridge Co., 159 Mass. 313, 34 N.E. 461. But there was nothing to show what the defect in this wheel was. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial