Thompson v. American Writing Paper Co.

• Decision Date: 23 November 1904
• Citation: 72 N.E. 343,187 Mass. 93
• Parties: THOMPSON v. AMERICAN WRITING PAPER CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

187 Mass. 93

72 N.E. 343

THOMPSON v. AMERICAN WRITING PAPER CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Hampden.

November 23, 1904

COUNSEL

Green &amp Bennett, for plaintiff.

Brooks & Hamilton, for defendant.

OPINION

HAMMOND J.

The work of removing the pulley in the morning was performed under the personal supervision of Griswold, the master mechanic of the mill, and was attended with no accident. The pulley safely passed over the very floor which gave way under its weight in the evening. It was about 14 feet long, and weighed from 1 1/2 to 2 tons. In the ceiling of the room were four eyebolts--one having been put in by Griswold that morning--and hooked to three of them, including this one were chain falls suitable for the purpose of relieving the floor of all or a part of the weight of the pulley.

One of the grounds of the defense is that at the time of the accident the plaintiff was directing the work, and was negligent in failing to make proper use of the chain falls and the brief of the defendant contains a detailed description of a way in which by a certain use of the eyebolts and falls, the strain upon the floor could have been relieved, as the defendant says, so that the pulley would have passed safely over it. The evidence, however, as to whether the work was under the direction of the plaintiff, was conflicting; and a careful examination of the evidence as to the manner in which the pulley was moved and the falls used shows that a jury would be warranted in finding that it was moved in the evening in the same manner as in the morning, except that in the evening the small end of the pulley was kept pointed towards the posts, whereas in the morning it had been kept pointing towards the arch, or, in other words, both in the morning and in the evening the pulley was moved small end foremost. Upon the whole evidence, we are of opinion that the questions whether the plaintiff was in charge of the undertaking, and whether the accident was attributable to a negligent failure to make proper use of the eyebolts and chain falls, or to any other negligent act in the work, are questions of fact for the jury.

It is also urged by the defendant that the danger of the work was known to the plaintiff, and that he assumed the risk. The plaintiff was a carpenter and millwright of large experience. He had been employed as such in this mill for five years, and had worked under Griswold, making repairs upon floors, and doing 'anything round the mill [he was] ordered to do.' The evidence tended to show that the floor of the room in question was constructed in the following manner: The floor timbers all ran one way. The floor proper consisted of 3-inch pine...