LEGAL DOCUMENT

Case: Petio Desrosiers vs. Augustus O. Bourn
Citation: 24 R.I. 288
Court: Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Jurisdiction: Rhode Island
Decision Date: 1902-07-08
Docket Number: 
Pages: 288–289
Volume: 24
Reporter: Rhode Island Reports

Parties: Petio Desrosiers vs. Augustus O. Bourn.

Petio Desrosiers vs. Augustus O. Bourn.
PROVIDENCE
JULY 8, 1902.
PRESENT : Stiness, C. J., Tillinghast and Rogers, JJ.
(1) Master and Servant. Negligence. Obvious Bislc.
A declaration alleging a defect in machinery by which, after plaintiffs fingers were caught, the hand and arm were drawn in because the machine could not he stopped until word was sent to the engine-room to shut off the power, and that this risk was not obvious or known to plaintiff, states a case. It does not claim a right of action for the obvious risk of having fingers caught in the rolls, hut for the excessive injury to the fingers after they were caught.
Trespass on the Case for negligence. Heard on demurrer to declaration, and demurrer overruled.
C. M. Lee and J. 8. Carpenter, for plaintiff.
W. B. Vincent, for defendant.

Per Curiam.
The court is of opinion that the declaration states a case. It does not claim a right of action for the obvious risk of having fingers caught in the rolls, but alleges a defect in the machinery by which, after the fingers were-caught, the hand and arm were drawn in because the machine could not be stopped until word could be sent to the engine-room to shut off the power ; and that this risk was not obvious or known to the plaintiff. The action being for this excessive injury, the demurrer on the ground that the alleged neglect was not the proximate cause of the injury is not sustainable.
The statements of the declaration do not show an apparent negligence on the part of the plaintiff so as to sustain the demurrer on that ground.
Demurrer overruled.