Wood v. Tileston & Hollingsworthy Co.

• Decision Date: 08 January 1903
• Citation: 182 Mass. 449,65 N.E. 810
• Parties: WOOD v. TILESTON & HOLLINGSWORTHY CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

182 Mass. 449

65 N.E. 810

WOOD v. TILESTON & HOLLINGSWORTHY CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Norfolk.

January 8, 1903

COUNSEL

Hiram

P. Harriman, Harry E. Perkins, and John F. Neal, for plaintiff.

Jas. E Cotter, for defendant.

OPINION

KNOWLTON C.J.

The plaintiff worked in the defendant's paper mill, and had occasion very frequently to use a ladder about eight feet long, leading to a platform about eight feet above the floor. The sides of this ladder, as appears by the model, were made of narrow boards, to which steps were fastened; the lower end being cut off at a slant corresponding to the slant at which the ladder would stand, such that, when the ladder was put up in a position for use, the cut ends of the boards at the bottom would rest horizontally on the floor, and would have little tendency to slip. Then at the foot of the ladder a cleat or pine board about an inch thick and five inches wide was nailed to the floor with five nails, and notches were cut at each end of the cleat within or against which the foot of the ladder would rest when it was in use. There were six or eight similar ladders, adjusted in the same way, and leading to similar platforms, connected with the calenders in other parts of the room. While the plaintiff was on the ladder, the cleat upon or against which the foot of the ladder rested split through from end to end in a new split; starting at the angle of the notch at one end, and coming out a considerable distance from the notch at the other. The evidence tended to show that there were no nails in the part of the cleat which split off, and the negligence complained of by the plaintiff was the failure to have the cleat properly nailed. It hardly seems possible that the ladder, if rightly handled and put in its proper position, could have had such a tendency to slide on the floor as to split the cleat from end to end, and it seems probable that the accident was caused by improper handling of the ladder; but if we assume, in favor of the plaintiff, that it was rightlyused, we come to the question whether there was any evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant. These arrangements for the use and security of the ladders were a part of the construction of the defendant's paper mill, and were there when the plaintiff made his contract of service. The risks attendant upon this use of ladders were open and obvious. There was no guaranty by the...