Meunier v. Chemical Paper Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort for injuries to the plaintiff from having his hand and arm caught between two rolls of a calender paper machine in the mill of the defendant.
Read the full summary
Tort for injuries to the plaintiff from having his hand and arm caught between two rolls of a calender paper machine in the mill of the defendant. Writ dated January 26, 1900. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Pierce, J., the plaintiff gave the following account of the happening of the accident after the direction or remark of Murphy, the superintendent, which is quoted in the opinion of the court: “ When Murphy said this to me with reference to throwing out the paper, I did not know whether or not that roll which is shown to the left of this one [the idler] had been replaced on the…
1Opinion of the CourtLathrop, J.
The machine on which the plaintiff was injured was a calender paper machine, so called, which was divided into three sections. The part where he was injured was called a No. 6 machine. There was a space in the frame of the machine, nine inches wide. To the left of this was a wooden roll eight inches in diameter, called the “ idler,” which did not move unless paper was passing over it, and was used only on certain kinds of work, and when not in use was taken out of the machine. Five or six inches to the left was a roll seven inches in diameter, called 0 in the exceptions. Still further to the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Ciriack v. Merchants' Woolen Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888
- Stuart v. West End Street Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1895
- Taylor v. Carew Manufacturing Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1885
- Lowcock v. Franklin Paper Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1897
- Robinska v. MillsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1899
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Whitmore v. H. K. Webster Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908