Silvia v. Sagamore Manufacturing Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort, at common law, to recover for personal injuries received by the plaintiff while employed as a tube boy or tuber in the mule room of the cotton mill of the defendant. Writ dated November 23, 1896. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Dewey, J., it appeared that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a tube boy or tuber. The tubes are small paper tubes, about an inch in height and a quarter of ’ an inch in diameter, that fit closely about the spindles.
Read the full summary
Tort, at common law, to recover for personal injuries received by the plaintiff while employed as a tube boy or tuber in the mule room of the cotton mill of the defendant. Writ dated November 23, 1896. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Dewey, J., it appeared that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a tube boy or tuber. The tubes are small paper tubes, about an inch in height and a quarter of ’ an inch in diameter, that fit closely about the spindles. Boys called “ doffers ” remove the full bobbins from the spindles. Other boys called “ tubers,” who have been waiting until…
1Opinion of the CourtKnowlton, J.
The plaintiff, a boy of ordinary intelligence, over fourteen years of age, was employed as a tuber in the mule room of the defendant’s factory. He was injured by having his fingers caught between the quadrant gear and the pinion gear of one of the mules. The plaintiff contends that the defendant was negligent in not warning him of the danger of getting his fingers caught in the gearing, and that this negligence caused the accident.
The evidence shows that the greater part of this gearing was always in plain sight when the mule moved in and out and when it was at rest, although its position…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Rooney v. Sewall & Day Cordage Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1894
- Stuart v. West End Street Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1895
- Ciriack v. Merchants' Woolen Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1890
- O'Connor v. WhittallMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1897
- Cheney v. Middlesex Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1894
3Cited by9 opinions
- Forquer v. Slater Brick Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1908
- Krisch v. RichterCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1910
- Gaudet v. StansfieldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1903
- Daniels v. New England Cotton Yarn Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1905
- Doolan v. Pocasset Manufacturing Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.