Smith v. Beaudry

• Decision Date: 28 February 1900
• Citation: 175 Mass. 286,56 N.E. 596
• Parties: SMITH v. BEAUDRY.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

175 Mass. 286

56 N.E. 596

SMITH v. BEAUDRY.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

February 28, 1900

COUNSEL

J. J. Shaughnessy, for plaintiff.

J. W McDonald, for defendant.

OPINION

LORING, J.

In this action the plaintiff seeks to recover for losing three fingers of his left hand in 'truing' a grindstone while in the defendant's employ. The defendant is a manufacturer of cutting dies. Cutting dies, while in the process of being manufactured, are ground down on a grindstone. The stone is thereby worn away, and its surface becomes uneven. 'Truing' a stone is grinding it down again until its surface becomes uniform and even. The plaintiff worked for the defendant from May, 1895, to September, 1895, and from January, 1896, until he was hurt on May 9th, of the same year. Before going to work for the defendant in 1895, the plaintiff had worked in die shops at different times for two years and a half in all. For 11 months, ending April, 1895,-a month before he first went to work for the defendant,--the plaintiff had worked in the Brockton Die Company's shop, and had been employed there in grinding about one-third of the time; and during the latter part of the time that he was grinding for that company he did the work of 'truing' the grindstone used by him. When he first applied for work at the defendant's factory, he was told by the defendant's brother 'that all they wanted a man for was to do grinding.' He accepted the employment so offered, and was set to work grinding the first day, and during the succeeding eight months in which he worked for the defendant, whenever there was any grinding to be done, he did part of it. When the plaintiff re-entered the defendant's employ in January 1896, he was employed helping the finishers on the floor, and continued in that work until April 11th, when one Laverdreu, who was an experienced grinder, and up to that time had been working on the grindstone which caused the accident in question, left the defendant's employ. The plaintiff was then set to work on this grindstone, and continued on that work until one MacDonald came. MacDonald stayed but a week, and, when he left, the plaintiff returned to this work. The grindstone in question revolved on an axle set in metal boxes wupported on heavy horizontal timbers. There was a rest to support the die when held against the stone to be ground, which extended crosswise from one timber to the other, and could be moved forward or back, as the size of the die required. At each end of the rest was fixed a bolt, which ran in a groove in the top of the two timbers which supported the grindstone. Each one of these grooves was strapped with a strip of iron. The top of each bolt attached to the ends of the rest terminated in a thread on which was screwed a nut. By screwing down the two nuts, the rest was fastened firmly in the position in which the operator desired it to be, and held there by the iron strapping on the grooves in which the bolts ran. Grindstones are 'trued' by a workman holding against the surface of the stone as it revolves an iron or wire in such a position that the elevations constituting the inequalities on the face of the stone come in contact with the iron wire, and are thereby worn down so that the surface of the stone becomes uniform. The iron or wire is held in position by holding it firmly on the rest which has been described. In the case at bar, the plaintiff was 'truing' a grindstone by holding against it a piece of iron gas pipe about five feet in length. The stone was revolving towards the plaintiff at the rate of not less than 100 revolutions a minute. The injury was caused by the point of the pipe being carried down between the rest and the stone, together with the plaintiff's left hand, with which he was holding the 'truing' iron in position. The stone was revolving so quickly that the plaintiff could not withdraw his hand, and a fellow workman, attracted by his cries, ran to his aid, and pulled his hand out, but not before he was so injured that he ultimately lost three fingers.

The plaintiff contends, in the first place, that the defendant is liable for this injury, because the metal boxes on which the axle of the stone rested were elevated five inches and a half above the timbers on which they were supported, and on which the rest traveled back and forth. It appeared that the rest was only five-eighths of an inch thick. The iron pipe, therefore, came in contact with the stone three and seven-eighths inches below the center of the stone; and it is contended that this intensified the danger of the iron being drawn under the stone by an inequality in its surface. It appeared that the metal boxes supporting the axle of the stone had been thus raised to enable the stone to clear the floor. The stone was originally from six to seven feet in diameter, and the top of the timbers was not quite three feet from the floor level. When the plaintiff was first employed, in 1895, he was employed to grind on this same grindstone, and no change had been made in it since that time. The fact testified to by the plaintiff that when h...