Stuart v. West End Street Railway Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort, for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff while in the defendant’s employ, by the loss of his left hand in a hay-cutting machine operated by horse power. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Maynard, J., the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; and the defendant alleged exceptions. The facts appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtKnowlton, J.
The plaintiff was not regularly employed upon the hay-cutter, and it seems very probable that on the day of the accident, when Green, the foreman, sent him to take the *392place of one Gilfoye, Green had no thought of his feeding the hay into the machine instead of pitching it upon the table in the rear of the machine, or taking it away after it was cut. Certainly the plaintiff was not told by anybody to feed the hay into the machine, but voluntarily undertook to do it, because, as he says, he supposed that was the part of the work which Gilfoye was expected to do on that day. But the jury might…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Rooney v. Sewall & Day Cordage Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1894
- Ciriack v. Merchants' Woolen Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888
- Russell v. TillotsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1885
- Goodnow v. Walpole Emery MillsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888
- Connolly v. EldredgeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1894
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by38 opinions
- Richmond Locomotive Works v. FordSupreme Court of Virginia · 1897
- McLean v. . Studebaker Brothers Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1917
- Zoulalian v. New England Sanatorium & Benevolent Ass'nMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1918
- Low Moor Iron Co. v. La Bianca's AdministratorSupreme Court of Virginia · 1906
- De Francesco v. Piney Mining Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1915
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.