The judge correctly directed verdicts for the defendant in this action of tort wherein the plaintiff seeks damages for burns suffered as the result of alleged near contact between the defendant's power lines carrying 23,000 volts and a hoisting crane whose operations were directed by signals from the plaintiff during a road construction job in a rural area. The plaintiff's hand was on steel rods held in a sling connected to the boom of the crane when the accident happened. In anticipation of the work to be done in the vicinity the defendant had raised the wires to at least fifty-eight feet above ground. The plaintiff had worked for two or three months in the area near the power lines where the accident occurred. He knew that electricity was dangerous, and was fully aware of the position of the power lines, although he did not know the voltage. Liability on any of the several theories of liability argued by the plaintiff cannot be found on this evidence. The factual situation in Rasmussen v. Fitchburg Gas & Elec. Light Co. 343 Mass. 515, 516-517, is quite dissimilar. Cf. Clough v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co. 342 Mass. 31. The count based on nuisance is disregarded. Delano v. Mother's Super Mkt. Inc. 340 Mass. 293, 297.

Exceptions overruled.

The allegations of this bill in equity in substance are as follows: The plaintiffs are owners of property, or reside, in the Mattapan district of Boston; the defendant has a license to conduct dances on premises in the immediate vicinity called Town & Country Club; on at least one night each week dances, with an admission charge and attended by about 450 youths, are conducted at the club; when dances are conducted there is a substantial increase of traffic in the streets near by and cars are parked by patrons in such a manner as to obstruct access to the plaintiffs' houses; numerous patrons congregate in the streets before, during and after the dances, making "loud and raucous noises and shout[ing] obscenities"; during the dances noise, shouting and loud music emanate from the club, which disturb the plaintiffs and interfere with their sleep; patrons upon leaving the club have engaged in brawling and fisticuffs; and empty beer cans and liquor bottles are thrown by them onto the plaintiffs' premises. The bill seeks injunctive relief and damages. A master to whom the case was referred made a report, and, pursuant to an order of recommittal, made a

Page 784

supplementary report. From a final decree dismissing the bill, the plaintiffs appealed. A recital of the master's findings would serve no useful purpose. His subsidiary findings establish that the principal allegations of the plaintiffs' bill have not been sustained; he concluded that there was "no injury of a sufficient degree to warrant the awarding of damages . . . or the issuance of an injunction." Since these findings are not mutually inconsistent or plainly wrong they are conclusive. Lawrence v. Selectmen of Egremont, 350 Mass. 354, 357. The principles governing cases of this sort have been fully set forth in Stevens vs. Rockport Granite Co. 216 Mass. 486. The decree dismissing the bill was right.

Decree affirmed with costs of appeal.