Legal Opinion

Dobek v. Amoskeag Manufacturing Co.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided February 3, 1920PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWalker, J.

The plaintiff was employed to work onmachines called fly-frames, and it was a part of her duty to keep them reasonably clean by removing the cotton lint which accumulated on them when in operation. Usually the cleaning was done when the machines were not in motion by the use of a suitable brush or with waste cotton. A part of the machinery consisted of rolls which, when the power was on, revolved by means of certain gears located in the interior of the machine. There was a covering or guard over them which was intended to keep the lint from them, but which did not entirely conceal them from…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Morrison v. Burgess Sulphite Fibre Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1900
  2. O'Hare v. Cocheco Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1901
  3. Willis v. Plymouth & Campton Telephone Exchange Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1910
  4. Straw v. Pittsfield Shoe Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1911
  5. Dionne v. American Locomotive Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1911

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Saunders v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1927
  2. Owen v. Elliot HospitalSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1927
  3. Trombly v. H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1929

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

Powered by the Exa API