Cunningham v. Bath Iron Works
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On Motion and Exceptions by Dependant. This was an action of tort, brought by the mother, as administratrix of the estate, of Mark W. Cunningham, to recover damages for injuries sustained by her son while in the employ of the defendant, and as a result of which he died on the sixth day of June, 1896. The plea was the general issue.
Read the full summary
On Motion and Exceptions by Dependant. This was an action of tort, brought by the mother, as administratrix of the estate, of Mark W. Cunningham, to recover damages for injuries sustained by her son while in the employ of the defendant, and as a result of which he died on the sixth day of June, 1896. The plea was the general issue. The case was tried to a jury at the December term, 1897, of this court, in Sagadahoc county, and a verdict returned for the plaintiff in the sum of 12,162.62. The alleged acts of negligence on the part of the defendant are stated in the declaration as follows: In a…
1Opinion of the CourtWhitehouse, J.
In this action the plaintiff, as administratrix on the estate of her son, seeks to recover damages for injuries sustained by the intestate on the sixth day of June, 1896, while in the employment of the defendant, resulting in his death on the same day.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $2,162.62, and the case comes to the law court on motion and exceptions by the defendant.
The defendant was engaged in building iron vessels, and for the purpose of cutting off pieces of angle iron to be used in their construction, a powerful machine was employed known as the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Sullivan v. India Manufacturing Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873
- Miner v. Connecticut River RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1891
- Ciriack v. Merchants' Woolen Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888
- Rock v. Indian Orchard MillsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1886
- Murphy v. American Rubber Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1893
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad v. HeereyIllinois Supreme Court · 1903
- Phoenix Printing Co. v. DurhamSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
- Lee v. St. Louis, Memphis & Southeastern RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1905
- Wiggins v. E. Z. Waist Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1910
- Krisch v. RichterCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1910
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.