Wilson v. Tremont & Suffolk Mills
| Decision Date | 19 May 1893 |
| Citation | 34 N.E. 90,159 Mass. 154 |
| Parties | WILSON v. TREMONT & SUFFOLK MILLS. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
It appeared from the evidence that defendant was a corporation engaged in the manufacture of cotton goods, and plaintiff was in its employ as a laborer, in that part of their works called the "dye house," and the injury of which he complained was received in the "dry room." The dryers in this room were appliances or structures of wood, in the shape of a box, 12 feet long, 6 or 7 feet wide, 5 feet high, and open at the top. In the inside of this structure, and about 12 inches from the top, was stretched a stout wire netting, attached to the sides and ends, and covering the whole interior. Beneath this netting were steam pipes to furnish heat for drying the cotton which was placed upon the netting. In this room were five dryers side by side, in immediate contact, and occupying so much of the room as to leave between them and the walls of the building a passageway about three feet wide. Around the top the dryer was finished with and terminated in a wooden moulding or "ledge," as it was called, about two inches wide, and somewhat convex on its upper surface. When the cotton was dry it was taken from the dryer, and put into bags suspended from the ceiling, and in contact with the end of the dryer, in the following manner: Directly over the dryer ran beams which supported the ceiling. Into the sides of these beams were driven spikes or nails. Two ropes, one for each side of the bag, were suspended from these spikes by loops at one end, and at the other end held the bag by hooks a third rope, to hold the bag open, was stretched to the opposite wall. Only one set of ropes was used, so that when one dryer had been emptied it was necessary to hang the ropes in a different place to empty another dryer. The plaintiff entered the service of the defendant, in this room, two or three days before the accident. He had worked in factories before, but was unfamiliar with this kind of work, and had never seen the bags suspended in this manner before He was instructed how to hang the bags by one Harkins, the overseer and agent of the defendant having charge of this room, who at the same time gave him a practical illustration; saying to the plaintiff, "Wilson, this is the way we do it." Harkins got into the dryer, and, being unable to reach the spike to hang the rope, he stepped up onto the "ledge" running around the top of the dryer, as before described, and, steadying himself with one hand against the beam,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co. v. Shalstrom
... ... 439, 443, 24 L.Ed ... 506; Kean v. Detroit Copper & Brass Mills, 66 Mich ... 277, 33 N.W. 395, 400, 11 Am.St.Rep. 492; Stuart v. New ... Co., 20 Mich. 105, 127, 4 Am.Rep. 364; Wilson v ... Tremont & Suffolk Mills, 159 Mass. 154, 155, 34 N.E. 90; ... ...
-
O' Hare v. Cocheco Mfg. Co.
...orders of his superior does not give him a right of action. Davis v. Railroad Co., 20 Mich. 105, 4 Am. Rep. 364, 376; Wilson v. Mills, 159 Mass. 154, 34 N. E. 90; Russell v. Tillotson, 140 Mass. 201, 4 N. E. A careful examination of the minutes of the testimony which have been furnished fai......
-
Mitchell v. Westport Hotel Operating Co.
... ... Rand ... Shoe Co., 145 Mo.App. 439, 452, 122 S.W. 747; Wilson ... v. Tremont et al., 159 Mass. 154, 34 N.E. 90; ... Fitzgerald v ... ...
-
Mitchell v. Westport Hotel Operating Co.
...and plaintiff knew as much about the danger of the work as the foreman. [English v. Rand Shoe Co., 145 Mo. App. 439, 452; Wilson v. Tremont et al., 159 Mass. 154; Fitzgerald v. Honkomp, 44 Ill. App. Unless there was some negligence on the part of the defendant in relation to the piling of t......