Stuart v. West End St. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 03 April 1895
• Citation: 40 N.E. 180,163 Mass. 391
• Parties: STUART v. WEST END ST. RY. CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

163 Mass. 391

40 N.E. 180

STUART v. WEST END ST. RY. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

April 3, 1895

COUNSEL

Sherman L. Whipple, for plaintiff.

M.F Dickinson, Jr., for defendant.

OPINION

KNOWLTON J.

The plaintiff was not regularly employed upon the hay cutter, and it seems very probable that on the day of the accident, when Green, the foreman, sent him to take Gilfoye's place, Green had no thought of his feeding the hay into the machine, instead of pitching it upon the table in the rear of the machine, or taking it away after it was cut. Certainly, the plaintiff was not told by anybody to feed the hay into the machine, but voluntarily undertook to do it because, as he says, he supposed that was the part of the work which Gilfoye was expected to do on that day. But the jury might have found that the direction given him was such as to justify him in taking his place at the machine to tend it. We therefore must consider the question whether the defendant was negligent in setting the plaintiff at work without warning him of the danger, and instructing him how to avoid it. The evidence tends to show that the best device possible for the protection of persons working on the machine was attached to it in the form of a hood extending back two feet and a half from the knives. The evidence was uncontradicted that since January, 1891, when hoods were placed on the 43 machines used in the 43 barns owned by the defendant, no accident has happened in the use of the machines except the accident to the plaintiff. The operation of the machine was simple, and obvious to every one of ordinary intelligence. The knives were open to view, and the plaintiff well understood that he would be seriously injured if he allowed his fingers to come in contact with them. They revolved rapidly, and, when the hay was passing through them it was drawn forward with a great deal of force. All this could be seen in a minute by every observer. No one who saw the machine in operation could fail to know that if it was clogged, and if the hay was then loosened with the hand, and started forward, it would go with great force as soon as it was brought within the traction of the revolving knives. It was apparent to everybody that it would be very dangerous to permit one's fingers to be caught in a tuft of hay which was about to pass forward between the knives. We see no evidence of any kind of danger which was not open and obvious to every one who saw the machine in operation.

The plaintiff, at the time of the accident, was 20 years and 6 months old, and was a "young man of ordinary intelligence and mental quickness." He testified that he had seen the machine work not more than three times before the day of the accident, and that on one previous occasion he had fed the hay into it for a...