Legal Opinion

Blais v. Flanders Hardware Co.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided May 1, 1945No. 3528PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJohnston, J.

The defendant claims that it could not reasonably be found that the plaintiff did not assume the risk of the hazard that resulted in his injury. The plaintiff Blais of course knew that if his hand came in contact with the swiftly revolving knives, it would be cut. But there is a further question of whether he knew and appreciated that the operation he engaged in would result in such contact. “Even if it were to be assumed, however, that the plaintiff was chargeable with knowledge that the acid was dangerous and that contact with it would be injurious, it could not be held, as a matter of law,…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Smith v. Twin State Gas & Electric Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1928
  2. Bixby v. ThurberSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1922
  3. Aldrich v. Concord & Montreal RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1892
  4. Disalets v. International Paper Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1908
  5. Reynolds v. Maine Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1925

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Panagoulis v. Philip Morris & Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1949
  2. Stanton v. Morrison Mills, Inc.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1946
  3. Van Gordon, Etc. v. Portland Gen. Elec.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1982
  4. Van Gordon, Etc. v. Portland Gen. Elec.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1982

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

Powered by the Exa API