Casey v. Frank Jones Brewing Co.

The defendant’s claim that it is not liable under Laws 1911, chapter 163, because at the time of the accident the plaintiff was not working upon or in proximity to power-driven machinery, is based upon a misconception of the first opinion in the Lizotte case, 78 N. H. 354. The later decision in that case makes it certain that liability under the act is not so limited. Morin v. Company, 78 N. H. 567.

The defendant also argues that there was no evidence of its fault in permitting the hoop on the barrel the plaintiff was handling to be in a dangerous condition. There was evidence that the…