Meehan v. Speirs Manufacturing Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort, for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff while in the defendant’s employ, by the alleged negligence of the defendant. Trial in the Superior Court, before Grashill, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows.
Read the full summary
Tort, for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff while in the defendant’s employ, by the alleged negligence of the defendant. Trial in the Superior Court, before Grashill, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows. The plaintiff testified that he had been employed for five years as a day watchman by the defendant at its bicycle factory; that on July 13, 1897, the day of the accident, he was employed with others in cleaning a tank used as a repository for a mixture of lubricating oil and soda water; that about 5.30 o’clock p. M. he was holding a lamp to enable the…
1Opinion of the CourtBarker, J.
The action is at common law, with the burden upon the plaintiff to show that the negligence from which he *377suffered was negligence for which his employer was answerable.' This burden is not met by evidence which is equally consistent with actionable fault of the employer, and with the absence of such fault. At common law a superintendent is for many purposes a fellow servant with the workmen under him, and the employer not answerable to them in case of the superintendent’s negligence even in giving an order. The plaintiff must go further, and show that the negligence of a superintendent was in…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Southern Indiana Railway Co. v. HarrellIndiana Supreme Court · 1903
- Law v. GallegherSupreme Court of Delaware · 1938
- Shaw v. New Year Gold Mines Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1904
- Haskell & Barker Car Co. v. PrzezdziankowskiIndiana Supreme Court · 1908
- Foster v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1904
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.