Dunkerley v. Webendorfer Machine Co.
Supreme Court of New Jersey
In tort. On rule to show cause.
1Opinion of the Court
*61Tlic opinion of the court was delivered by
Swayze, J.
Tlie plaintiff was injured by the bursting of a rapidly revolving emery wheel, while he was grinding-spindles. The defect complained of was in the centres that held the spindles, which were so worn that they permitted a vibration, which caused the bursting of the wheel. The defect was known to the plaintiff, who made complaint to Marston, the superintendent. Marston told the plaintiff that “he was having a new pair of centres made and he would put them in at the first opportunity.”
The judge charged that the plaintiff perceived the danger,…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Hough v. Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Dolner v. The MonticelloU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1870
- Indianapolis & St. Louis Railway Co v. WatsonIndiana Supreme Court · 1888
- Greene v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
- Swift & Co. v. O'NeillIllinois Supreme Court · 1900
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Gover v. Central Vermont Railway Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1922
- Konig v. Nevada-California-Oregon RailwayNevada Supreme Court · 1913
- Dailey v. Swift & Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1912
- Andrecsik v. New Jersey Tube Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1906
- Fox v. Kinnear Pressed Radiator Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1907
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.