TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

May v. Whittier Machine Co.

Augustus May v. Whittier Machine Company

May v. Whittier Mach. Co., 27 N.E. 768 (Mass. 1891)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 20, 1891
Judges
Holmes
Citations
27 N.E. 768154 Mass. 291891 Mass. LEXIS 52
Headnotes
Personal Injuries — Master and Servant—Employers' Liability Act. In an action for personal injuries brought by an employee, in which there were two' counts in the declaration, the first at common law and the second under the St. of 1887, c. 270, § 1, there was -evidence that the plaintiff, while engaged in helping another servant of the defendant in planing a board on a planing machine, started to go to the other end of the machine, slipped or stumbled, put his' hand on the machine, and was hurt; that there was an open floor in front of the machine by which he could have gone, although it was somewhat obstructed by unfinished work, but he went back of the machine instead; that there was a space of three feet and one inch between the back of the planing machine and a band saw at which a man was working within this space; that some small pieces of wood had been piled up against the back of the planing machine by a fellow servant of the plaintiff, making a pile about a foot high and eight and one quarter inches wide, and leaving a clear space of not more than fourteen inches; and that the plaintiff had known of this pile for about a fortnight. The plaintiff, as required by the presiding judge, elected to stand upon the second count, whereupon the judge ruled that there was no evidence to go to the jury, and ordered a verdict for the defendant. Held, that the plaintiff had no ground of exception.
Summary
Tort, for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff while in the defendant’s employ. The declaration contained two counts, the first at common law, and the second framed on the St. of 1887, c. 270, § 1, cl. 1. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Dunbar, J., the plaintiff, as required by the presiding judge, elected to stand upon the second count, and the judge ruled that there was no evidence to go to the jury, and directed a verdict for the defendant; and the plaintiff alleged exceptions.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Holmes

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Holmes, J.

The plaintiff, while engaged in helping another servant of the defendant in planing a board on a planing machine, started to go to the other end of the machine, slipped or stumbled, put his hand on the machine, and was hurt. There was an open floor in front of the machine by which he could have gone, although the floor was somewhat obstructed by unfinished work. He went by the back of the machine instead. There was an interval of three feet and one inch between the back of the planing machine and a band saw, and a man was working at the band saw in this interval. Some small pieces of wood had been piled up against the back of the planing machine by a fellow servant of the plaintiff, making a pile about a foot high and eight and one quarter inches wide, so that, according to the plaintiff’s testimony, the clear space was not more than fourteen inches. The plaintiff had known of the pile for about a fortnight.

On these facts the judge rightly ruled that the plaintiff could not recover on the ground that there was a defect in the condi *31 tian of the ways under the first section of the employers’ liability act. St. 1887, c. 270, § 1. Apart from other reasons, the obstructions were only rubbish of accidental and temporary character, which has been declared not to be within the act by O’ Connor v. Neal, 153 Mass. 281 .

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that in some cases the plaintiff would have a right to go to the jury upon both a statutory and a common law count, in view of the different possible findings on his evidence, (Ryalls v. Mechanics' Mills, 150 Mass. 190, 196 , and Whiteside v. Brawley, 152 Mass. 133 ,) the plaintiff was not injured by being required to elect in the case at bar. If he had sought to recover at common law, the negligence, if there was any, was that of a fellow servant; Johnson v. Boston Tow-Boat Co. 135 Mass. 209 ; Moynihan v. Hills Co. 146 Mass. 586, 593 ; and there was no ground on which it could have been found that anybody knew or appreciated whatever danger there was more fully than the plaintiff. Lewis v. New York & New England Railroad, 153 Mass. 73 . Exceptions overruled.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1893: 21920: 118932026peak 1893 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Arzuaga v. Ortiz266 F. 449 (1st Cir. 1920)
  2. Lynch v. Allyn35 N.E. 550 (Mass. 1893)
  3. Conroy v. Inhabitants of Clinton33 N.E. 525 (Mass. 1893)

Most recent

  1. Arzuaga v. Ortiz266 F. 449 (1st Cir. 1920)
  2. Lynch v. Allyn35 N.E. 550 (Mass. 1893)
  3. Conroy v. Inhabitants of Clinton33 N.E. 525 (Mass. 1893)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 6

DepthCaseCited by
Ryalls v. Mechanics' Mills, 22 N.E. 766 (Mass. 1889) 63
Moynihan v. Hills Co., 16 N.E. 574 (Mass. 1888) 62
Johnson v. Boston Tow-Boat Co., 135 Mass. 209 (1883) 56
Whiteside v. Brawley, 24 N.E. 1088 (Mass. 1890) 36
Lewis v. N.Y. & New England R.R., 26 N.E. 431 (Mass. 1891) 22
O'Connor v. Neal, 26 N.E. 857 (Mass. 1891) 10

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list