McCarthy v. Boston Duck Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort, for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff, while in the defendant’s employ. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Dewey, J., it appeared that the plaintiff, when injured, was at work in the dye-room of the defendant’s mill mixing some dye stuffs in a tub; that the tub stood near a certain machine, and the plaintiff, while at work, stood in a stooping posture directly underneath the belt which ran from the fixed pulley on the machine to the pulley on the…
Read the full summary
Tort, for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff, while in the defendant’s employ. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Dewey, J., it appeared that the plaintiff, when injured, was at work in the dye-room of the defendant’s mill mixing some dye stuffs in a tub; that the tub stood near a certain machine, and the plaintiff, while at work, stood in a stooping posture directly underneath the belt which ran from the fixed pulley on the machine to the pulley on the shaft overhead; that the belt was fastened by a Talcott plate, which was a piece of iron about three and one quarter…
1Opinion of the CourtField, C. J.
We infer that the first question put to the witness Webber was excluded by the court on account of the form of it,* because, when counsel stated what he offered to show by the witness, the court said, “ I have not ruled on that.” The usual way of asking for an opinion of an expert is to state hypothetically the facts upon which the opinion is desired. Woodbury v. Obear, 7 Gray, 467, 471. It is said, however, that this is not an exclusive formula. Hunt v. Lowell Gas Light Co. 8 Allen, 169, 172.
It is important that the form of the question should be such as not to require or permit the witness…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Myers v. Hudson Iron Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1889
- Veginan v. MorseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1893
- Goodnow v. Walpole Emery MillsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888
- Hale v. CheneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1893
- Carey v. Boston & Maine RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1893
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Langenfelder v. ThompsonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1941
- Commonwealth v. JohnsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1905
- Larson v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1912
- William Laurie Co. v. McCulloughIndiana Supreme Court · 1910
- Dolan v. Boott Cotton MillsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1904
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.