Ellis v. Pierce
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort, for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff while working in the defendant’s employ upon a moulding machine, moulding out box toes. The declaration contained two counts, one under the employers’ liability act, St. 1887, c. 270, and the other at common law. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Maynard, J., the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff ; and the defendant alleged exceptions, which appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtKnowlton, J.
The plaintiff’s mother testified, without objection, that the defendant said her son was a good workman, and that “his getting hurt was not due to any carelessness of his, and that he was a very steady fellow and attended to his business.”
The evidence of the plaintiff’s mother that the defendant said to her, “ I do not want to tell you to sue me, but if it was me I *221should sue. . . . My machines are all insured, and you will have to sue me to get at the insurance company,” was competent. What he said about insurance was immaterial. But the statement came as a part of a sentence in which he…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Eldridge v. BartonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1919
- Nehring v. SmithSupreme Court of Iowa · 1951
- Bernasconi v. BassiMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1927
- Dennison v. SwerdloveMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1925
- Mielke v. DobrydnioMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.