Connolly v. Eldredge

36 N.E. 469, 160 Mass. 566, 1894 Mass. LEXIS 328
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided March 1, 1894·Published·Cited by 20 cases

Opinion

Holmes, J.

The danger to fingers from two cylinders in contact with each other, and seen to be revolving inwardly, is obvious to any person of ordinary powers, and plainly was understood by the plaintiff. Crowley v. Pacific Mills, 148 Mass. 228. In Patnode v. Warren Cotton Mills, 157 Mass. 283, 289, it might have been found that the plaintiff could not see the revolving rolls by which he was hurt. In the present case, if there had been no guard across the shelf of the mangle, the plaintiff would have acted at her peril. But the guard did not convert the mangle into a trap. It manifestly was not intended to protect the hand except in the ordinary use of the mangle, when clothes were slid under the guard. The plaintiff was putting a cloth upon the cylinder, above the guard. She saw, or might have seen, all the elements of danger, including the [571] distance between the guard and the cylinder on that side. To appreciate them required no warning or instruction beyond what is furnished by common experience.

Exceptions overruled.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Connolly v. Eldredge, 36 N.E. 469, 160 Mass. 566, 1894 Mass. LEXIS 328 (Mass. 1894).

36 N.E. 469 (Connolly v. Eldredge) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ziraldo v. W. J. Lynch Co.
1 N.E.2d 565 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1936)
Gazette Printing & Publishing Co. v. Suits
226 P. 542 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1924)
Hanel v. Obrigewitsch
168 N.W. 45 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1918)
Morris & Co. v. Pechenka
249 F. 445 (Eighth Circuit, 1918)
Carney Coal Co. v. Benedict
129 P. 1024 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1913)
Fryezynski v. W. W. Rice Leather Co.
137 N.W. 56 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1912)
Duggan v. Heaphy
83 A. 726 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1912)
Seininski v. Wilmington Leather Co.
83 A. 20 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1911)
Harris v. Bottum
70 A. 560 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1908)
Kranich v. Knapp
86 P. 207 (Washington Supreme Court, 1906)
Burke v. Davis
76 N.E. 1039 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1906)
Butler v. Frazee
25 App. D.C. 392 (D.C. Circuit, 1905)
Bier v. Hosford
77 P. 867 (Washington Supreme Court, 1904)
Thomas v. Railway
58 A. 838 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1904)
Thomas v. Exeter, Hampton & Amesbury Street Railway Co.
73 N.H. 1 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1904)
Gaudet v. Stansfield
65 N.E. 850 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1903)
Groth v. Thomann
86 N.W. 178 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1901)
Lowcock v. Franklin Paper Co.
47 N.E. 1000 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1897)
Stuart v. West End Street Railway Co.
40 N.E. 180 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1895)
Wilson v. Steel Edge Stamping & Retinning Co.
39 N.E. 1039 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1895)