Legal Opinion

Ryalls v. Mechanics' Mills

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided November 27, 1889PublishedCited by 66 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, J.

This is an action for personal injuries caused to an employee by a defect in the condition of the machinery used in the business of her employer. The declaration is framed without reference to the Employers’ Liability Act (St. 1887, c. 270), and the plaintiff has had a verdict. We must take it, therefore, that the defect was of such a kind that the defendant would have been liable under our decisions unless the above statute has cut down the plaintiff’s common law rights. The question raised by the report is, whether since that statute an employee’s right of action in cases like this is…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Moynihan v. Hills Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888
  2. Johnson v. Boston Tow-Boat Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1883
  3. Lawless v. Connecticut River RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1883
  4. Pratt v. American Bell Telephone Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1886
  5. McGee v. Boston Cordage Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1885

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

3Cited by66 opinions

  1. McNicol's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1913
  2. Ex Parte Majestic Coal Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1922
  3. American Rolling Mill Co. v. HullingerIndiana Supreme Court · 1903
  4. Conley v. ConleyMontana Supreme Court · 1932
  5. Emmons v. ShawMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1898

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

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

Powered by the Exa API