Legal Opinion

Churchill v. Exeter Manufacturing Co.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided January 2, 1934PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBranch, J.

Any workman injured while in the employ of one who has accepted the provisions of the employers’ liability and workmen’s compensation act may elect to receive compensation thereunder or to bring an action at common law for negligence, but he cannot do both. P. L., c. 178, ss. 11, 12. The language of the statute is extremely clear and permits of only one conclusion. “The pursuit of either the statutory or common-law remedy releases the employer from liability under the other.” Roberts v. Hillsborough Mills, 85 N. H. 517, 518. It was the design of the act “to compel him [a workman] having made…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Dambmann v. . SchultingNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
  2. Peterson v. First National Bank of CeylonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1925

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. LaBonte v. National Gypsum Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1970
  2. Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. New Hampshire · 2011
  3. Bee v. Chicopee Mfg. Corp.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1947
  4. Ahearn v. Eldredge Brewing Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1937
  5. Carignan v. Amoskeag Hamper Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1948

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API