Spaulding v. Forbes Lithograph Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 20 May 1898
• Citation: 50 N.E. 543,171 Mass. 271
• Parties: SPAULDING v. FORBES LITHOGRAPH MFG. CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

171 Mass. 271

50 N.E. 543

SPAULDING v. FORBES LITHOGRAPH MFG. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 20, 1898

COUNSEL

Gargan &amp Keating, for plaintiff.

John Lowell and James A. Lowell, for defendant.

OPINION

HOLMES J.

This is an action of tort at common law for personal injuries. The plaintiff was employed by the defendant to remove cards, as printed, from a lithographic press, and to cover them with tissue paper. To do this he sat with his left side towards a revolving cylinder on which the cards were placed, and when the cylinder stopped, as it did automatically after each card was printed, he removed the card, another one was put upon it by another boy, and the cylinder revolved again. The cylinder was covered by an iron mask while revolving, which lifted just long enough for the change of cards and closed again before the new revolution. The plaintiff's hand was caught by this iron mask as it closed, and he was severely hurt. According to the plaintiff's testimony, he had been using his left hand to remove the cards, that being the nearest to the cylinder but one Lehan, the man immediately over him, told him to use his right. This he did, and by doing it necessarily leaned his body more to the left. The seat tipped up, threw him against the machine, and in that way caused the accident. The seat was a board four or five feet long, and was supported by four fixed iron rods fitted loosely into holes on the under side of the board, which rested on them unattached. There was evidence that the rods were three or four inches from the end of the board nearest the cylinder. The distance between the end of the board and the cylinder was twelve or fourteen inches. The plaintiff had a verdict, and the case is here on the defendant's exceptions, the most important of which is to the judge's refusal to take the case from the jury. The others are to the admission of evidence.

We are of opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to retain his verdict. A seat such as we have described in connection with the automatically opening and shutting jaw of the cylinder mask make as clear a case of a trap as can be imagined especially when the sitter is directed to do an act most likely to cause the seat to tip at the very moment when the jaw opens and shuts. It appears from the plaintiff's testimony that he did not know of the liability of the board to behave as it did, and the risk seems to us far from obvious. The amount of leverage of the projecting edge of the board could be ascertained only by looking under the seat and there was nothing calling on the plaintiff to do that unless he knew that the board was unattached. On the other hand, the arrangement of the structure was a matter which at least the jury well might have found that the defendant knew or ought to have known, even...