Gouin v. Wampanoag Mills

51 N.E. 1078, 172 Mass. 222
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedNovember 23, 1898
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 51 N.E. 1078 (Gouin v. Wampanoag Mills) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gouin v. Wampanoag Mills, 51 N.E. 1078, 172 Mass. 222 (Mass. 1898).

Opinion

Knowlton, J.

The plaintiff and a man called Pat were engaged in moving cotton in the defendant’s cotton house. Pat was on the top of a pile of cotton bales in a room about sixty feet long and forty feet wide, and the plaintiff was on the floor near the bottom of the pile; they were moving the cotton out towards the door. The space was about half filled with cotton. The work was simple, both of the men were familiar with it, [223]*223and neither of them could be supposed by the defendant to need instructions in regard to it. As the plaintiff was rolling a bale of cotton with his back towards Pat, another bale, which was thrown down by Pat, struck him and broke his leg.

The only ground on which the plaintiff seeks to hold the defendant is that its superintendent, Robinson, who was eating his breakfast not far away from the pile when the accident happened, had told Pat a short time before to “ throw down cotton.” The plaintiff testified differently in different parts of his testimony as to whether the order to throw down cotton was given when Robinson first ordered them to do this work, or later just before the bale came down. However that may have been, the order can only be interpreted as directing Pat to throw down cotton in a proper way, and in a proper place, and not as telling him to throw it down upon the plaintiff when he was standing underneath. It cannot properly be interpreted as a direction to throw down a particular bale in a particular way, without regard to the plaintiff’s safety.

The burden being upon the plaintiff, we do not find that there was evidence of any order of the superintendent that was more than a command or request to hurry on the work in a proper way, or which made the superintendent or his employer responsible for Pat’s negligence in throwing down the bale upon the plaintiff. Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

Corbett v. Davis
1 Mass. App. Dec. 75 (U.S. District Court, 1941)
Morris v. Pike
104 N.E. 368 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1914)
Saures v. Stevens Manufacturing Co.
82 N.E. 694 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1907)
McDonnell v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford Railroad
78 N.E. 548 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1906)
Bamford v. G. H. Hammond Co.
78 N.E. 115 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1906)
Desautels v. Cloutier
75 N.E. 703 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1905)
Gorman v. Woodbury
53 N.E. 373 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1899)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
51 N.E. 1078, 172 Mass. 222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gouin-v-wampanoag-mills-mass-1898.