Smith v. Lowell Mfg. Co.

Citation124 Mass. 114
PartiesPatrick Smith v. Lowell Manufacturing Company
Decision Date19 February 1878
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

Middlesex. Tort for personal injuries received in the defendant's mill. Trial in this court, before Ames, J., who ruled that, upon the evidence, the plaintiff could not maintain his action, and, after a verdict for the defendant, reported the case for the consideration of the full court. The nature of the evidence appears in the opinion.

Judgment on the verdict.

F. T. Greenhalge, (J. F. McEvoy with him,) for the plaintiff.

D. S. Richardson & G. F. Richardson, for the defendant, were not called upon.

Morton, J. Ames & Lord, JJ., absent.

OPINION

Morton, J.

The plaintiff was engaged in cleaning the outside frame of a carding machine. In rubbing the movable board, which formed a part of the frame, he pressed it in at the top, and was injured. This board was kept in place by wooden buttons on the outside, held with screws. The only evidence in the case which tended to show the cause of the board's giving way, was that the button at the bottom, intended to keep it in its place, had become loosened. In entering the defendant's service, the plaintiff assumed all the ordinary risks of his employment, including those arising from the negligence of his fellow servants. The only negligence which the jury would be justified in finding, upon the evidence, to be the cause of the plaintiff's injury, was negligence of a fellow servant in not tightening the screw which held the loosened button. For such negligence, the defendant is not responsible to the plaintiff, it being admitted that it employed competent and suitable servants.

The ruling of the presiding justice that, upon the evidence, the plaintiff could not maintain his action, was therefore correct.

Judgment on the verdict.

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • New Deemer Mfg. Co. v. Alexander
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • January 1, 1920
    ... ... Cutting, (1899), 174 ... Mass. 398, 54 N.E. 842; Howard v ... Hood (1892), 155 Mass. 391, 29 N.E. 630; ... Ryan v. Smith (1898), 29 C. C. A ... 427, 56 U.S. App. 604, 85 F. 758; Burns v ... Sennett (1896 Cal.), 44 P. 1068; 99 Cal. 363, 33 P ... 916; ... P. R ... Co. (1885), 62 Wis. 338, 11 N.W. 269; Faber ... v. Carlisle Mfg. Co. (1889), 126 Pa. 387, ... 17 A. 621; Smith v. Lowell Mfg ... Co. (1878), 124 Mass. 114; Ulrich v ... New York C. & H. R. Co. (1898), 25 A.D. 465, 51 ... N.Y.S. 5; Prescott v. Ball ... ...
  • Garrahy v. Kansas City, St. J. & C.B.R. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Kansas
    • October 3, 1885
    ...Silver Min. Co., 3 Sawy. 500; Memphis & C.R. Co. v. Thomas, 51 Miss. 637; Sullivan v. Toledo, etc., Ry. Co., 58 Ind. 26; Smith v. Lowell Manuf'g Co., 124 Mass. 114; Walker v. Bolling, 22 Ala. 294; Shields Yonge, 15 Ga. 349; Honner v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 15 Ill. 550; Madison, etc., R. Co.......
  • Copper v. Louisville
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • October 17, 1885
    ...Silver Min. Co., 3 Sawy. 500;Memphis & C. R. Co. v. Thomas, 51 Miss. 637;Sullivan v. Toledo, etc., Ry. Co., 58 Ind. 26;Smith v. Lowell Manuf'g Co., 124 Mass. 114,Walker v. Bolling, 22 Ala. 294;Shields v. Yonge, 15 Ga. 349;Honner v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 15 Ill. 550;Madison, etc., R. Co. v.......
  • Farmer v. Cent. Iowa Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • October 7, 1885
    ...Silver Min. Co., 3 Sawy. 500;Memphis & C. R. Co. v. Thomas, 51 Miss. 637;Sullivan v. Toledo, etc., Ry. Co., 58 Ind. 26;Smith v. Lowell Manuf'g Co., 124 Mass. 114;Walker v. Bolling, 22 Ala. 294;Shields v. Yonge, 15 Ga. 349;Honner v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 15 Ill. 550;Madison, etc., R. Co. v.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT