O'Brien v. American Dredging Co.
Supreme Court of New Jersey
On rule to show cause. Plaintiff’s action was brought to recover damages for an injury received by him by reason of his foot having been •drawn into the machinery of a steam dredge, whereon he was •employed as a “deck hand.” The dredge was owned by •defendant, and was, at the time, used in dredging, the James river, near Richmond, under a contract with the United States government.
Read the full summary
On rule to show cause. Plaintiff’s action was brought to recover damages for an injury received by him by reason of his foot having been •drawn into the machinery of a steam dredge, whereon he was •employed as a “deck hand.” The dredge was owned by •defendant, and was, at the time, used in dredging, the James river, near Richmond, under a contract with the United States government. The machinery had stopped because the chain had jumped from the drum, and plaintiff took a position which exposed him to the injury if the machinery moved. The evidence was conflicting whether plaintiff had been…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Mague, J.
One of the reasons assigned in support of this-rule is based on the contention that Cannon, whose act occasioned the injury of plaintiff, was a fellow-servant of plaintiff, and that their common employer, the defendant, is not liable' for Cannon’s negligence (if his act was negligent), unless it appears that defendant did not exercise proper care in employing him, or in retaining him in its employ, of which there was no proof.
The general rule, that servants employed by or under the control of the same master, in a common employment, obviously…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. RossSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. v. BayfieldMichigan Supreme Court · 1877
- Chicago & Alton Railroad v. MayIllinois Supreme Court · 1883
- Brick v. Rochester, New York & Pennsylvania RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1885
- Cook v. Hannibal & St. Joe. R. R.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1876
3Cited by21 opinions
- Southern Indiana Railway Co. v. HarrellIndiana Supreme Court · 1903
- Southern Indiana Railway Co. v. MartinIndiana Supreme Court · 1903
- Atchison & Eastern Bridge Co. v. MillerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1905
- Balch v. HaasCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1896
- Langhorne v. SimingtonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1914
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.