Willis v. Plymouth & Campton Telephone Exchange Co.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
The plaintiff’s evidence tended to prove that Frank B. Willis had worked for the defendants about one year at the time he was killed. He was employed as a lineman, and had a little experience as such before entering the defendants’ employ. It was a part of his work to straighten leaning poles.
Read the full summary
The plaintiff’s evidence tended to prove that Frank B. Willis had worked for the defendants about one year at the time he was killed. He was employed as a lineman, and had a little experience as such before entering the defendants’ employ. It was a part of his work to straighten leaning poles. He was told that when doing such work he must inspect the poles for himself, that he was not to climb a pole unless he knew it was safe to do so, and was not to climb one that leaned badly without using a guy rope. The defendants’ employees, including the man who gave Willis these instructions, were in…
1Opinion
The question concerning the refusal to give the third instruction requested by the defendant has been argued as though it referred only to one express, unequivocal order given for this particular piece of work. If the request had been so framed as to relate to this order and this alone, there might be force in the arguments advanced. But the request is broader than that. It includes all instructions ever given Willis, and demands a verdict for the defendant if failure to follow any of these instructions in any way caused the accident.
There was evidence not only of the specific instruction for…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- McNee v. Coburn Trolley Track Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1898
- Smith v. Bank of New EnglandSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1903
- Minot v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1907
- Chase v. ChaseSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1891
- Smith v. Bank of New EnglandSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1899
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.