Brady v. Ludlow Manufacturing Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Toet, for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff while in the defendant’s employ. The declaration, which was in four counts, alleged that the plaintiff while in the exercise of due care was injured in the defendant’s factory; the first count, which was at common law, alleged that he was injured by a failure of the defendant to give him sufficient instructions as to his duties, and to notify him of the dangers and perils incident thereto; the second, which was framed…
Read the full summary
Toet, for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff while in the defendant’s employ. The declaration, which was in four counts, alleged that the plaintiff while in the exercise of due care was injured in the defendant’s factory; the first count, which was at common law, alleged that he was injured by a failure of the defendant to give him sufficient instructions as to his duties, and to notify him of the dangers and perils incident thereto; the second, which was framed on the St. of 1887, c. 270, § 1, cl. 1, alleged that he was injured by the failure of the defendant, or of some person in…
1Opinion of the CourtKnowlton, J.
The only defect relied upon by the plaintiff in this case was an alleged defective condition of the gate. No claim was made on account of the gears, and it was admitted by the plaintiff that he understood the danger of injury from them, and that he needed no instructions about them.
The defect in the gate was, that when swung together it would not catch on the fastening, and if fastened would not stay so, but would stand a little way open. There was no contention that the gate was defective in any other particular. It was designed to close automatically, and the undisputed testimony of…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Ciriack v. Merchants' Woolen Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888
- Crowley v. Pacific MillsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1889
- Probert v. PhippsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1889
3Cited by8 opinions
- Corbett v. Boston & Maine RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1914
- Clare v. New York & New England RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1898
- Richstain v. Washington Mills Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1893
- Golding v. BrennanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1903
- Conroy v. Inhabitants of ClintonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1893
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.