McCaughey v. Jenckes Spinning Co.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

McCaughey v. Jenckes Spinning Co.

59 A. 110, 26 R.I. 426, 1904 R.I. LEXIS 96

DecidedOctober 10, 1904

StatusPublished

This text of 59 A. 110 (McCaughey v. Jenckes Spinning Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McCaughey v. Jenckes Spinning Co., 59 A. 110, 26 R.I. 426, 1904 R.I. LEXIS 96 (R.I. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

(1) Blodgett, J.

The duty of the employer, in respect of the-construction and inspection of belting, has been so fully and .so recently considered by the court, in Cummings v. National & Providence Worsted Mills, 24 R. I. 390, and McGar v. Providence Worsted Mills, 22 R. I. 347, that we think it is not necessary to add to those cases.

The undisputed testimony is that the belt fastening in question was both made and applied by the- defendant, and that no inspection of any kind was ever given to the condition of a. belt on a pulley revolving more than one thousand times a. minute. And the testimony of the defendant’s overseer, Mag-nail, on cross-examination, is as follows, in response to a question whether the ends of a belt should be left an inch apart or even a half-inch apart (p. 62): “Well, I should say it would be poor workmanship to have them as far as that. . . - C. Q. 101. If a belt is fastened that way, anywhere from from half an inch to three-fourths of an inch space left like-that (indicates), would that be a proper way to leave a belt-to be going around 1,062 times a minute- — would that be a safe belt? A. Well, I shouldn’t hardly say it would be. It would be safe, but they are liable to pull out quicker that way than if they were closer together.”

*427 Hugh J. Carroll, for plaintiffs. Vincent, Boss & Barnefield, for defendant.

We are not prepared to say that the jury were not justified in finding that the fastening in question had been hammered down into the leather, as the plaintiff’s witness Flanagan testified, without contradiction by the defence, appeared to be the case. Neither is it disputed that the plaintiff suffered a miscarriage the day following the accident and was confined to her bed for several weeks.

Under these circumstances we can not say that the verdicts of $1,500 damages to the plaintiff wife, and of $200 to her husband, for the loss of his wife’s services, are excessive.

Petition for a new trial denied.

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

(1) Blodgett, J.

The duty of the employer, in respect of the-construction and inspection of belting, has been so fully and .so recently considered by the court, in Cummings v. National & Providence Worsted Mills, 24 R. I. 390, and McGar v. Providence Worsted Mills, 22 R. I. 347, that we think it is not necessary to add to those cases.

The undisputed testimony is that the belt fastening in question was both made and applied by the- defendant, and that no inspection of any kind was ever given to the condition of a. belt on a pulley revolving more than one thousand times a. minute. And the testimony of the defendant’s overseer, Mag-nail, on cross-examination, is as follows, in response to a question whether the ends of a belt should be left an inch apart or even a half-inch apart (p. 62): “Well, I should say it would be poor workmanship to have them as far as that. . . - C. Q. 101. If a belt is fastened that way, anywhere from from half an inch to three-fourths of an inch space left like-that (indicates), would that be a proper way to leave a belt-to be going around 1,062 times a minute- — would that be a safe belt? A. Well, I shouldn’t hardly say it would be. It would be safe, but they are liable to pull out quicker that way than if they were closer together.”

*427 Hugh J. Carroll, for plaintiffs. Vincent, Boss & Barnefield, for defendant.

We are not prepared to say that the jury were not justified in finding that the fastening in question had been hammered down into the leather, as the plaintiff’s witness Flanagan testified, without contradiction by the defence, appeared to be the case. Neither is it disputed that the plaintiff suffered a miscarriage the day following the accident and was confined to her bed for several weeks.

Under these circumstances we can not say that the verdicts of $1,500 damages to the plaintiff wife, and of $200 to her husband, for the loss of his wife’s services, are excessive.

Petition for a new trial denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A. 110, 26 R.I. 426, 1904 R.I. LEXIS 96, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccaughey-v-jenckes-spinning-co-ri-1904.