Legal Opinion
Shurkus v. Gate City Foundry Co.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Decided May 3, 1927PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the CourtSnow, J.
The defendant had accepted the provisions of Laws 1911, c. 163; P. L., c. 178. The plaintiff has waived the provisions for his benefit and elected to sue at common law. Ib., s. 4; Bjork v. Company, 79 N. H. 402, 404. He is, therefore, subject to the defense of the assumption of risk (Cassidy v. Company, 79 N. H. 427, 429), including the risk of injuries caused by the negligence of fellow-servants. Hodges v. Company, 81 N. H. 101. The plaintiff assumed such risks as he knew of and appreciated, or which would have been disclosed to him by the exercise of due care (Cassidy v. Company, supra;…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Morden Frog & Crossing Works v. FriesIllinois Supreme Court · 1907
- Nickas v. HinesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1921
- Primley v. Elbe Lumber & Shingle Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1909
3Cited by1 opinion
- Levesque v. American Box & Lumber Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1931