Ruchinsky v. French
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort, for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff while in the defendants’ employ. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Sherman, J., there was evidence tending to show that at the time of the accident the plaintiff was engaged in pulling squares of pasted leather, in size about twenty-four inches by eighteen inches and about an inch thick, through the rollers of a splitting machine, under the immediate personal direction of one of the defendants, who was passing…
Read the full summary
Tort, for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff while in the defendants’ employ. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Sherman, J., there was evidence tending to show that at the time of the accident the plaintiff was engaged in pulling squares of pasted leather, in size about twenty-four inches by eighteen inches and about an inch thick, through the rollers of a splitting machine, under the immediate personal direction of one of the defendants, who was passing the leather squares between and through the rollers of the machine; that at each end thereof, on the side where the…
1Opinion of the CourtLathrop, J.
The plaintiff in this case does not contend that the defendants were in fault in not guarding the cog wheels. Her contention is that she should have been warned, when set to work upon the machine, that there were cog wheels upon the sides, and that if she got her hands into them she would be hurt. The cog wheels were in plain sight, and there was no hidden danger. The plaintiff was thirty years old, and of ordinary intelligence. While she testified that she knew nothing of the dangers of the machine, and the exceptions state that she was unfamiliar with machinery, the defendants had a right…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Ciriack v. Merchants' Woolen Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888
- Stuart v. West End Street Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1895
- Ciriack v. Merchants' Woolen Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1890
3Cited by14 opinions
- Illinois Central Railroad v. SwiftIllinois Supreme Court · 1904
- English v. Roberts, Johnson & Rand Shoe Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1909
- Wilson v. Massachusetts Cotton MillsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1897
- McDonnell v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1906
- Gaudet v. StansfieldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1903
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.