O'Keefe v. Brownell
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort, under the St. of 1887, c. 270, and the amendments thereto, to recover for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff’s intestate while in the defendants’ employ.
Read the full summary
Tort, under the St. of 1887, c. 270, and the amendments thereto, to recover for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff’s intestate while in the defendants’ employ. The declaration was as follows: “ And the plaintiff says that he is the duly appointed administrator of the goods and estate of Daniel O’Keefe, that said intestate, on September 8, 1890, while .in the employ of the defendants and in the exercise of due care, by the reason of the negligence of a person in the service of the defendants intrusted with and exercising superintendence, whose sole and principal duty was that of…
1Opinion of the CourtBarker, J.
It is unnecessary to consider whether the notice was good, since upon the evidence the plaintiff has no right of action under either count of his declaration.
*133The duty of securing the tool by the fall of which the plaintiff’s intestate was injured, so that when in use for the purpose for which it was employed at the time of the accident it would not be liable to fall, was not a duty of superintendence. If the tool as then used constituted, with its surroundings, a defect in “ ways, works, or machinery,” the defect arose solely from the negligent use of the tool by fellow workmen of the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- McGinty v. Athol Reservoir Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
- Howard v. HoodMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
3Cited by3 opinions
- Trim v. Fore River Ship Building Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1912
- Gunn v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1898
- Geloneck v. Dean Steam Pump Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1896