Ouillette v. Overman Wheel Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort, for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff while in the defendant’s employ in its factory by the falling upon him of shafting and pulleys fastened to beams overhead by two hangers.
Read the full summary
Tort, for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff while in the defendant’s employ in its factory by the falling upon him of shafting and pulleys fastened to beams overhead by two hangers. The declaration, which was at common law, alleged that the defendant negligently failed to furnish the plaintiff with a reasonably safe and suitable place in which to work, with reasonably safe and suitable instrumentalities with which to work, and to give him proper instructions and warnings regarding the dangers attending the work, all of which it was his duty to do; and by reason thereof the…
1Opinion of the CourtMorton, J.
The instructions given by the court covered the rulings asked for by the defendant, and stated the law correctly. Whether the defendant was or was not liable was matter of proof. The burden was on the plaintiff. If he failed for any reason to sustain it, the defendant was entitled to a verdict, not because prima faoie it appeared that there had been no neglect on his part, but because the plaintiff had not shown any. So far as any presumption existed, it was that the defendant performed its duty, as the court told the jury. The jury were also told in effect that under the circumstances of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Curtis v. . GanoNew York Court of Appeals · 1863
3Cited by5 opinions
- Jackson v. AnthonyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933
- Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. O'BrienCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1904
- Lenehan v. TraversMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934
- Mangano v. MarstonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1937
- Montbriand v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota · 1911