Reynolds v. Merchants' Woolen Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort, for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff by the flying apart of the cylinder of a dusting machine in use in the mill where he was employed. The declaration contained two counts, one at common law, and the other under the employers’ liability act, St. 1887, c. 270. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Blodgett, J., the jury returned a verdict for the "defendant; and the plaintiff alleged exceptions, the nature of which appears in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtBarker, J.
It is conceded that the plaintiff was in the exercise of due care. The machine had been recently purchased of a reputable manufacturer of machinery. It had no iron bands around its cylinder, and such bands would have tended to keep it from bursting, and were in use on other dusting machines in the mill. There was also evidence tending to show that the cause of the accident was the existence of blow holes in the iron arms which formed part of the cylinder, and that no inspection could have detected the presence of the blow holes.
The only exception argued upon the plaintiff’s brief was one…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Losee v. . BuchananNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Grand Rapids & Indiana Railroad v. HuntleyMichigan Supreme Court · 1878
- Cosulich v. Standard Oil Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Moynihan v. Hills Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888
- Dobbins v. . BrownNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Feeney v. York Manufacturing Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1905
- Burke v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1926
- St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. EwingTexas Commission of Appeals · 1920
- Fuller v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1900
- Kirk v. SturdyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1904
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.