Legal Opinion

Hale v. Cheney

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided June 2, 1893PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLathrop, J.

This is an action at common law, in which the plaintiff seeks to recover for personal injuries sustained by him while in the defendant’s employ. The case comes before us on the defendant’s exceptions to the refusal of the judge who presided in the court below to rule that the plaintiff had failed to show that he was in the exercise of due care when injured, or that the defendant’s, machinery was unsuitably placed, defective, and dangerous.

The defendant was a manufacturer of boxes. He occupied a room seventy-eight feet long and thirty-eight feet wide, in which were about fifteen machines.…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Sullivan v. India Manufacturing Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873
  2. Rock v. Indian Orchard MillsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1886
  3. Goodnow v. Walpole Emery MillsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888
  4. Foley v. Pettee Machine WorksMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1889
  5. Tinkham v. SawyerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1891

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Rooney v. Sewall & Day Cordage Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1894
  2. Ford v. Mount Tom Sulphite Pulp Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1899
  3. McCarthy v. Boston Duck Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1896
  4. Prattville Cotton Mills Co. v. McKinneySupreme Court of Alabama · 1912
  5. Wilson v. Massachusetts Cotton MillsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1897

8 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