Ryan v. Tarbox
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff while in the employ of the defendant. Answer, a general denial. Trial in the Superior Court, before Mason, J., who ruled that there was no evidence to go to the jury, from which it would be competent for them to find for the plaintiff, and directed a verdict for the defendant; and the plaintiff alleged exceptions. The facts appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMorton, C. J.
Upon a careful examination of the evidence in this case, we are of opinion that the plaintiff had the right to go to the jury upon the question of the liability of the defendant.
The defendant had contracted with the owners to tear down an old brick building. The plaintiff was employed by him as one of the laborers, and was injured by the fall of a part of one of the walls. This wall was built of two courses of brick, each four inches in thickness. The inner course supported a chimney extending down to the second floor, but not to the ground. There was evidence tending to show that, on the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Coombs v. New Bedford Cordage Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
- O'Connor v. AdamsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
- Walsh v. Peet Valve Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1872
3Cited by5 opinions
- Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. FrawleyIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
- Evansville & Richmond Railroad v. MadduxIndiana Supreme Court · 1893
- Feeney v. York Manufacturing Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1905
- Anderson v. ClarkMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
- O'Driscoll v. FaxonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892