Foley v. Hines
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On exceptions and motion for new trial by defendant. This is an action on the case to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff while in the employ of the defendant, as a laborer in assisting in discharging coal from a vessel, at a wharf in Portland owned by defendant; Several counts at common law, and one invoking the provisions of the State Workmen's Compensation Act, R. S., Chap. 50, were embraced in the writ.
Read the full summary
On exceptions and motion for new trial by defendant. This is an action on the case to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff while in the employ of the defendant, as a laborer in assisting in discharging coal from a vessel, at a wharf in Portland owned by defendant; Several counts at common law, and one invoking the provisions of the State Workmen's Compensation Act, R. S., Chap. 50, were embraced in the writ. Defendant filed the general issue, and also a brief statement of special matter of defense, alleging that the case came within the provisions of the Federal…
1Opinion of the CourtCornish, C. J.
On August 14, 1918, the plaintiff, an employe of the Portland Terminal Company, sustained injuries while at work “trimming coal” in the hold of a vessel at the company’s wharf in the City of Portland. The jury rendered a verdict in his favor in the sum of $9,120.75 and the case is before the Law Court on defendant’s exception to the refusal of the presiding Justice to direct a verdict for the defendant and on a general motion to set aside the verdict. The reasons assigned for asking for a directed verdict are two; first because the plaintiff has failed to show actionable negligence on the…
2Cases cited36 opinions
- Seaboard Air Line Railway v. HortonSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Pedersen v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Shanks v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- St. Louis, San Francisco & Texas Railway Co. v. SealeSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. HarringtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Thornhill v. Davis, Director GeneralSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1922
- Hulse v. Pacific & Idaho Northern Railway Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1929