Legal Opinion

Paige v. M. T. Stevens & Son's Co.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided October 3, 1922PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtYoung, J.

The plaintiff concedes that his ward was familiar with the physical condition of the defendants’ instrumentalities, and realized that if he came in contact with the gears which drove the condenser rolls he would be injured, but contends that it does not follow that he assumed the risk of this injury. He bases his contention on his ward’s testimony that he did not think he would be injured.

What this contention comes to in the final analysis is that notwithstanding he knew the machine was so close to the wall that the gate would only open part way and that he had to stand with his back close to…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Cronin v. Columbian Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1909
  2. Collins v. Laconia Car Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1894
  3. O'Hare v. Cocheco Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1901
  4. Cassidy v. Atlantic Corp.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1920
  5. Ahern v. Amoskeag Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1908

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Zajac v. Amoskeag Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1924
  2. Owen v. Elliot HospitalSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1927
  3. Upton v. Conway Lumber Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1925
  4. Dubuc v. Amoskeag Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1940
  5. Judkins v. Exeter & Hampton Electric Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1924

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

Powered by the Exa API