Pendergast v. Burley & Stevens, Inc.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort by a workman employed in the defendant’s shoe factory at Newburyport, for personal injuries, consisting of the loss of a part of one of the plaintiff’s fingers, which was caught between the beam of a dieing out or “ dinking ” machine and the top of a metal die used for cutting leather into required shapes. Writ dated January 5, 1909. In the Superior Court the case was tried before Fox, J., who at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence ordered a verdict for the defendant.
Read the full summary
Tort by a workman employed in the defendant’s shoe factory at Newburyport, for personal injuries, consisting of the loss of a part of one of the plaintiff’s fingers, which was caught between the beam of a dieing out or “ dinking ” machine and the top of a metal die used for cutting leather into required shapes. Writ dated January 5, 1909. In the Superior Court the case was tried before Fox, J., who at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence ordered a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff alleged exceptions.
1Opinion of the CourtHammond, J.
While the plaintiff was at work for the defendant on a “ dinking ” machine, one of his fingers was caught between the striking beam and the top of the die, and was injured. The machine was operated by a treadle. Every time the treadle was pressed by the operator’s foot the machine started and the beam came down upon the die, and when the foot was taken from the treadle the machine instantly stopped.
There was some evidence that the machine was out of repair and therefore repeated, and that in that way the plaintiff’s injury was caused. We have not found it necessary to consider the question of…
2Cited by2 opinions
- White v. Wells Bros.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1913
- Carroll v. HubbardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1914