Straw v. Pittsfield Shoe Co.

• Decision Date: 07 February 1911
• Citation: 79 A. 495,76 N.H. 35
• Parties: STRAW v. PITTSFIELD SHOE CO.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

79 A. 495

76 N.H. 35

STRAW

v. PITTSFIELD SHOE CO.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Merrimack.

Feb. 7, 1911.

Transferred from Superior Court, Merrimack County; Wallace, Judge.

Action on the case for negligence by George E. Straw against the Pittsfield Shoe Company. There was a verdict for the plaintiff, and on the defendant's exception to a denial of its motion for a directed verdict, the case was transferred to the Supreme Court. Verdict set aside, and judgment entered for the defendant.

Remick & Hollis, Harry J. Brown, and Alexander Murchie (Mr. Murchie, orally), for plaintiff.

Streeter, Hollis, Demond & Woodworth (Mr. Woodworth, orally), for defendant.

PEASLEE, J. The defendant's motion for a directed verdict was based upon the ground (among others) that the place where the plaintiff was injured was not one where his duty required him to be, or where the defendant ought to have anticipated he would go, and therefore it owed him no duty to make the place safe. He was injured by being caught upon pins projecting from a revolving shaft located nine inches from the rear wall of an open woodshed and nearly two feet above the ground. Timbers six inches square and about as high as the shaft formed the frame supporting it; the front timber being about three feet farther from the wall than the shaft, and the rear one a little outside the shed wall. Power was taken from this shaft to operate a wood saw. The saw was about five feet front of this frame, and so located that the man taking away from it stood in an open space at the end of the saw bench and in front of the frame carrying the driving shaft. The plaintiff had worked about this place some two years before the accident. He did not operate the saw, but assisted in handling the wood, drove a team, and did odd jobs about the premises. His eyesight was impaired, and there was some evidence that he was not of average intelligence.

There is no pretense that he had any occasion to go behind the front timber of the driving shaft frame before mentioned for the first year and a half of his employment. At the end of that time a hole was cut in the rear wall, so that the sawdust which accumulated in front of and to some extent under this frame might be more conveniently thrown out. This opening was 2 feet 10 inches wide by 3 feet 10 inches high, and the bottom of it was 18 inches above the top of the shaft. The boards that were cut out were made into a shutter to close the opening when it was desirable to do so. This shutter was not hinged to the studding, but had to be removed...