Lehman v. Van Nostrand
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort, for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff while in the defendant’s employ. The declaration contained two counts under the employers’ liability act, St. 1887, c. 270. Trial in the Superior Court, before Dunbar, J., who refused to rule, as requested by the defendant, that, upon all the evidence, the plaintiff could not maintain his action.
Read the full summary
Tort, for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff while in the defendant’s employ. The declaration contained two counts under the employers’ liability act, St. 1887, c. 270. Trial in the Superior Court, before Dunbar, J., who refused to rule, as requested by the defendant, that, upon all the evidence, the plaintiff could not maintain his action. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; and the defendant alleged exceptions, the nature of which appears in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.
The injury to the plaintiff resulted from the bursting of a bottle of ale while he was engaged in packing ale for the defendant. There was evidence tending to show that the ale was too lively to be handled with safety, and was likely to cause the bottles to burst. The plaintiff had been at work for the defendant about ten days. Before that he had had a -large experience in packing sweet beers, ale, and lager in champagne bottles, but had never seen a bottle of ale explode like that which caused the injury to him until the day of the accident. On that day, two bottles had previously exploded,…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Fuller v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1900
- Ragolsky v. NurenbergMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1912
- Wood v. Canadian Imperial Dry Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1936