Snook v. Portsmouth
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
1Opinion of the CourtBranch, J.
In support of the defendant’s contention that its motion to dismiss the petition should have been granted, it is argued that the plaintiff was not engaged in “a type of employment which was contemplated by Section 1 of this Act.” In support of this argument it is asserted first, that there is no evidence that five or more persons were employed by the defendant, and second, that “The work is not inherently dangerous to the life or limb of the workman, nor is there danger of injury by fellow servants great or difficult to avoid.” Neither of these arguments merits more than passing notice.
So far…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Gallienne v. Becker Bros. Shoe Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1937
3Cited by2 opinions
- Whitham v. GellisSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1940
- Bedford Development Co. v. Town of BedfordSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1982