Keats v. National Heeling Mach. Co.

First Circuit

Keats v. National Heeling Mach. Co.

65 F. 940, 13 C.C.A. 221, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 2275

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedJanuary 29, 1895

DocketNo. 92

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 65 F. 940 (Keats v. National Heeling Mach. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Keats v. National Heeling Mach. Co., 65 F. 940, 13 C.C.A. 221, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 2275 (1st Cir. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We do not And in this case any evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant in the construction and arrangement of its premises and machinery. The employment of a set screw upon a revolving shaft, which caused the injury to the plaintiff, was the common and ordinary way in which such shafts were constructed. The defendant was a mechanic of mature years, and had worked on these premises for some time before the accident occurred. It is also shown that he might have performed the work without danger by another method of reaching it, requiring, perhaps, a little more time. Upon this state of facts, we think the defendant had no reasonable cause to believe that the plaintiff would do the work in such a way as to expose himself to danger, and that it was not guilty of negligence in not warning him. The rule laid down in cases where employes are set at work in positions of unusual and concealed danger is not applicable i:o the present case. In our opinion, there was no evidence of negligence sufficient to support a verdict by the jury for the plaintiff, and the court below committed no error in directing a verdict for the defendant. Judgment affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We do not And in this case any evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant in the construction and arrangement of its premises and machinery. The employment of a set screw upon a revolving shaft, which caused the injury to the plaintiff, was the common and ordinary way in which such shafts were constructed. The defendant was a mechanic of mature years, and had worked on these premises for some time before the accident occurred. It is also shown that he might have performed the work without danger by another method of reaching it, requiring, perhaps, a little more time. Upon this state of facts, we think the defendant had no reasonable cause to believe that the plaintiff would do the work in such a way as to expose himself to danger, and that it was not guilty of negligence in not warning him. The rule laid down in cases where employes are set at work in positions of unusual and concealed danger is not applicable i:o the present case. In our opinion, there was no evidence of negligence sufficient to support a verdict by the jury for the plaintiff, and the court below committed no error in directing a verdict for the defendant. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 F. 940, 13 C.C.A. 221, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 2275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keats-v-national-heeling-mach-co-ca1-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack