Thompson v. Bartlett
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
The plaintiff’s evidence tended to prove the following facts: Before July 21, 1900, the day that the plaintiff was injured, he had caulked all of the edges of the tank, except those portions where the horses, some twenty in number, prevented. On the morning of the accident, the defendants moved the horses away from the inside of the tank about eight inches, so that those portions of the edges that had been covered by the horses could be caulked.
Read the full summary
The plaintiff’s evidence tended to prove the following facts: Before July 21, 1900, the day that the plaintiff was injured, he had caulked all of the edges of the tank, except those portions where the horses, some twenty in number, prevented. On the morning of the accident, the defendants moved the horses away from the inside of the tank about eight inches, so that those portions of the edges that had been covered by the horses could be caulked. The plaintiff walked once over the planks in their -changed position without discovering anything wrong in the way the planks were placed. When he…
1Opinion of the CourtRemick, J.
For present purposes it must be assumed that it was the legal duty of the defendants to prepare and move the staging for the plaintiff, and in such manner that it would be and remain in a reasonably safe condition; that notwithstanding this duty, the defendants so moved the staging, just previous to the plaintiff’s injury that one of the planks was insecurely placed; that the plaintiff had no actual knowledge that the plank was misplaced, or of the danger arising from it, and had no opportunity for knowledge other than that afforded by the circumstances attending his approach to the danger at…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Kane v. Northern Central Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad v. HinesIllinois Supreme Court · 1890
- Gibson v. Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1870
- Cook v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1885
- Ferren v. Old Colony RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1886
9 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
- Hamel v. Newmarket Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1905
- Slack v. CarterSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1903
- Tierney v. New England Granite WorksSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1919
- Lucas v. PietkevichSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1934
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.