Martel v. White Mills
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Action, for personal injuries under Laws 1911, c. 163. The defendants were subject to the above act, and had not accepted its provisions. Trial by jury and verdict for the plaintiff. There was a view of the premises where the plaintiff was employed. The machine upon which he was injured was seen when at rest and when in motion.
Read the full summary
Action, for personal injuries under Laws 1911, c. 163. The defendants were subject to the above act, and had not accepted its provisions. Trial by jury and verdict for the plaintiff. There was a view of the premises where the plaintiff was employed. The machine upon which he was injured was seen when at rest and when in motion. Exceptions were taken by the defendants to the denial of their motions for a nonsuit and for a directed verdict, to argument of counsel, and to the charge of the court. The facts appear in the opinion. Transferred from the September term, 1919, of the superior court by…
1Opinion of the CourtPlummer, J.
The plaintiff’s evidence tended to prove the following facts. The plaintiff was employed in the defendants’ cotton mill to grind and repair their cards. He had been thus employed for a year and a half before his injury. The accident occurred on a dark, cloudy morning, a few minutes after seven, October 19, 1917.
When the plaintiff came to work that morning, the second hand informed him that a card was wet, and needed drying. The plaintiff immediately went to the card, stopped it, and after going upstairs and putting on his overalls, returned to the card, and took out its feed-roll (its…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Gage v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1914
- Mitchell v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1894
- Boody v. K. & C. Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1914
- Kambour v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1913
- Demars v. Glen Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1892
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Derosier v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1925
- Roussel v. Nashua Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1922
- Byron v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1926
- Steinfield v. Monadnock MillsSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1923
- Mann v. Peterson Motor Express, Inc.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1939
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.