D'Ambrosio v. Boston & Maine Railroad
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
1Opinion of the CourtYoung, J.
The only questions considered are whether it can be found as a matter of fact that (1) the plaintiff was acting within the scope of his employment when he was injured, and (2) the accident was one arising out of and in the course of his employment.
1. The test to determine whether the plaintiff was acting within the scope of his employment when he was injured is not to inquire whether he was told in so many words to do the act in question, but whether the defendants ought to have anticipated that such a man might do it. Roussel v. Company, 80 N. H. 254.
If it can be found as a fact, it cannot…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- North Carolina Railroad v. ZacharySupreme Court of the United States · 1914
3Cited by6 opinions
- Ford Motor Co. v. WhittCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1935
- Employers' Liability Assur. Corp. v. MillsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1935
- Saunders v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1927
- Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. GolladaySupreme Court of Virginia · 1935
- Ward Furniture Manufacturing Co. v. PickleSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1927
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.