
    Abelenia O. McDonald vs. Clarence N. Lovell & another.
    Suffolk.
    December 9, 1907.
    December 10, 1907.
    Present: Knowlton, C. J., Hammond, Loring, Bralet, & Rügg, JJ.
    
      Negligence, Employer’s liability.
    At the trial of an action by a woman of full age employed in a candy factory against her employer to recover for personal injuries received because of the fall of a ladder upon which she was standing in the performance of her duties, it appeared that the plaintiff had been employed by the defendant at the same work for about two weeks, that the ladder was furnished by the employer to be used in procuring boxes from high shelves in a store room, was heavy, about eight feet high and roughly made of unplaned boards, that when in use it rested upon a smooth floor, that just before tile accident the plaintiff herself had placed it in position in order to get a box from a shelf, had mounted it and was using both hands to pull out the box when the ladder slipped at the bottom and fell, causing her injuries. Held, that the plaintiff assumed the risk of the injury.
    Tort by a woman employed in a candy factory against her employer to recover for injuries caused by the fall of a ladder upon which she was standing, alleged to have been caused by defective construction of the ladder and the floor upon which it stood. Writ in the Superior Court for the county of Suffolk dated October 5, 1905.
    There was a trial before Sherman, J. It appeared that the plaintiff had been employed by the defendant two or three weeks when she was injured and that, in the course of her employment, it was necessary from time to time for her to use a ladder to get candy boxes from shelves in the store room. & ladder was furnished by the defendants for her and others to use for that purpose. It was heavy, about eight feet in length, made of rough, unplaned boards and was of the same width all the way up. The side pieces were two and one half inches thick, the cross pieces two inches thick and nailed on the outside of the side pieces. The floor upon which it rested was made of smooth boards. Just before she was injured, the plaintiff herself had placed the ladder against the top shelves, had mounted it, and was using both hands to procure a box tightly packed among others upon the shelf, when the bottom of the ladder slipped, and it fell with her.
    At the close of the evidence for the plaintiff, the presiding judge, at the request of the defendants, directed a verdict in their favor, and the plaintiff excepted.
    The case was submitted on briefs.
    
      T. J. Kenny & J. P. Bell, for the plaintiff.
    
      N. Matthews, W. G. Thompson B. Spring, for the defendant.
   Per Curiam.

The plaintiff was of full age and not lacking in intelligence. The ladder, though rough and homely, was sound, exactly what it appeared to be, and suitable for the purpose for which it Was used. The floor was an ordinary wooden floor. If the foot of the ladder was placed too far from the wall it would slip and the plaintiff knew it.

The ladder was there in use when the plaintiff entered the defendant’s service. That an employer owes the employee no duty to change such an appliance, and that the employee on entering the service impliedly agrees to assume such risk as there is in the use of it, is too plain for argument or the citation of authorities.

Exceptions overruled.  