Lamson v. American Axe & Tool Co.
58 N.E. 585 (1900)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employee who understands and appreciates a specific, non-negligent, permanent workplace danger, complains about it, and is told to either accept the condition or leave employment, assumes the risk of injury by choosing to continue working.
Facts:
- The plaintiff, Lamson, was a long-time employee of the American Axe & Tool Co.
- Lamson's job was to paint hatchets and place them on drying racks.
- Approximately one year before his injury, the company replaced the old racks with new ones that were less safe.
- The new racks were positioned near machinery whose vibrations could cause the hatchets to fall off the pegs.
- Lamson complained to his superintendent that the new racks were dangerous and that hatchets were more likely to fall on him.
- The superintendent responded that Lamson would have to use the racks or leave his job.
- Lamson chose to remain in his employment and continued to work with the unsafe racks.
- A hatchet subsequently fell from one of the racks and injured Lamson.
Procedural Posture:
- Lamson sued American Axe & Tool Co. in a Massachusetts trial court for personal injuries.
- The trial court found in favor of the defendant, American Axe & Tool Co.
- Lamson, the plaintiff, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employee assume the risk of injury from a known workplace hazard when they continue to work after complaining to their employer and being told to either accept the dangerous condition or quit?
Opinions:
Majority - Holmes, C. J.
Yes, an employee assumes the risk of injury under these circumstances. The plaintiff fully understood and appreciated the danger posed by the new racks, perhaps more than anyone else. The danger was not a result of a sudden negligent act by another, but a permanent and obvious condition of his workplace. After complaining, he was explicitly given the choice to face the risk or to leave his employment. By choosing to stay, he voluntarily assumed the risk of the very accident he feared, and the fact that he was motivated by the fear of losing his job does not negate this assumption.
Analysis:
This case is a classic, stark application of the common law doctrine of assumption of risk in the master-servant relationship, before the advent of workers' compensation statutes. The holding demonstrates how heavily the doctrine favored employers, effectively placing the burden of known, permanent workplace hazards on the employee. The decision reinforces that an employee's choice to remain on the job, even under the economic pressure of potential unemployment, was legally considered a voluntary acceptance of known risks, barring recovery for subsequent injuries.
Unlock the full brief for Lamson v. American Axe & Tool Co.