Wolf v. New Bedford Cordage Co.

• Decision Date: 04 December 1905
• Citation: 76 N.E. 222,189 Mass. 591
• Parties: WOLF v. NEW BEDFORD CORDAGE CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

189 Mass. 591

76 N.E. 222

WOLF v. NEW BEDFORD CORDAGE CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Bristol.

December 4, 1905

COUNSEL

James

P. Doran and Edward T. Bannon, for plaintiff.

Andrew J. Jennings and Arthur E. Perry, for defendant.

OPINION

BRALEY J.

While the declaration contained a count charging negligence in setting the plaintiff at work to help repair a finishing frame without warning him of the danger that the teeth or needles on the endless chain might break, and, if they did he might be injured, he rests his right to recover principally on a failure to provide him with suitable appliances with which to make the repairs. The frames in the defendant's factory were of different sizes. On the largest machines, because of the weight of the chain, a tackle was used to lift it out; but the undisputed testimony of the machinist in charge of the work, and under whom the plaintiff was working as an apprentice at the time of the accident, makes it evident that a crowbar was considered a suitable appliance for this purpose on a machine of the size of that which was being repaired.

An employer, while under no obligation to provide the most modern machinery and tools for the use of his employés, must furnish those that the reasonably safe and adapted to the work, and keep them them in proper repair. Fuller v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co., 175 Mass. 424 56 N.E. 574; Slattery v. Walker & Pratt Mfg. Co., 179 Mass. 307, 60 N.E. 782. In connection with the work being done the crowbar itself was neither a defective nor an obsolete tool, but the danger arose from the manner in which the bar was used when the plaintiff helped to lift the chain from its position. The mere fact that one of the teeth or needles struck and broke on the plaintiff's bar is not evidence of a defective appliance; for the needle equally might have broken upon coming into contact with a tackle block and hook, if they had been used. That some other appliance in the opinion of mechanical experts might have been more suitable, or that one appliance was safer than another, was immaterial, as that provided appears to have been fit and proper.

But, as the action was at common law, and both crowbars and tackles are shown to have been provided, though the plaintiff testified that no other appliances were immediately available, if the machinist in charge carelessly selected a crowbar for the plaintiff's use rather...