Fickett v. Lisbon Falls Fibre Co.
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On Motion by Dependant. This was an action of tort in which the plaintiff alleged he was injured by defective machinery while employed by the defendant in its pulp-mill. The case appears in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtFoster, J.
The plaintiff 'recovered a verdict of $2037.50 for. personal injuries received by him while in the defendant’s employment. The defendant asks this court, upon motion in the usual form, to set that verdict aside.
The plaintiff’s duty was to enter the blow-pits, after the pulp was cooked and blown into these pits from the digesters, and there by means of large hose wash down the pulp. It was in one .of these blow-pits that the plaintiff received the injuries of which he complains.
In order to understand just how the plaintiff got hurt, it is necessary to state something of the process by which…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Ford v. Fitchburg RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1872
- Whittaker v. . D. H.C. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1891
3Cited by7 opinions
- Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf Railroad v. JonesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
- Scheurer v. Banner Rubber Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1910
- Ward v. Inter-Island Steam Navigation Co.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1915
- Stone v. Boscawen MillsSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1902
- Ward v. Dampskibselskabet KjoebenhavenDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1905
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.