Toy v. U.S. Cartridge Co.

• Decision Date: 21 June 1893
• Citation: 34 N.E. 461,159 Mass. 313
• Parties: TOY v. UNITED STATES CARTRIDGE CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

159 Mass. 313

34 N.E. 461

TOY v. UNITED STATES CARTRIDGE CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

June 21, 1893

COUNSEL

P.J. Hoar, for plaintiff.

J.N Marshall, M.L. Hamblet, and John C. Burke, for defendant.

OPINION

MORTON J.

There is no doubt that there was evidence for the jury on the question of the plaintiff's due care. Indeed, the defendant does not argue that there was not. The real question is whether there was any evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant. It was the duty of the defendant in the exercise of reasonable care, to see that the machine on which the plaintiff was set to work was in a safe condition, and was suitable for the purpose for which it was used. This obligation applied to all its parts. The punch formed a part of it. Rice v. King Philip Mills, 144 Mass. 229, 11 N.E. 101. It was fitted to, and inserted in, it, was necessary to its use, and was furnished by the defendant for use in it, and as a part of it. A machine may be so constructed, and its operation may be such, as to call for a frequent replacement of one or more of its constituent parts. Such parts, when adjusted in the machine, become as much a part of it as if included in the original construction, and a defect in one of them is a defect in the machine. The duty of seeing that such parts are not defective is one incumbent on the master. It is not a matter of ordinary repair from day to day, which may be intrusted to a servant. The defendant could not, therefore, avoid responsibility by delegating this duty to persons whom it believed to be competent, and who were in fact competent, to perform it. If the injury to the plaintiff was due to a defect in the punch, which might have been discovered by the exercise of reasonable care on their part, but was not, the defendant is liable for their negligence. Moynihan v. Hills Co., 146 Mass. 592, 16 N.E. 574, and cases cited.

The plaintiff testified that she was required to examine the shells from time to time to see if they were scratching, and that on the day of the accident she found that they were scratching, and informed the foreman of it, and he sent for one McParland, the second hand, to look after the machine. McParland took out the dies and punch, and put in new dies and a new punch, and then told the plaintiff to start the machine by a signal, which she did. The first time the punch went down through the plate and dies all right, there being no shell, but the second time it broke, and caused the injury complained of. The plaintiff further testified that before she started the machine she saw a small black mark extending half way round the punch, about in the middle of the punch and, in further description of it, said "that she didn't know what this black mark meant, but that it looked like a knitting needle that had gone rusty and black." There was also testimony tending to show that the punch broke in the middle, and some of the witnesses said that they never knew before of a...