English v. Amidon
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Cask, for personal injuries. Trial by jury. At the September term, 1902, of the superior court the defendants’ motion for a non-suit was granted by Peaslee J., and the plaintiff excepted.
1Opinion of the Court
It was the duty of the defendants, in the exercise of reasonable care and diligence, to provide and maintain a safe and suitable stairway by which the plaintiff, as their servant, could go to and from his place of work in the mill. Fifield v. Railroad, 42 N.H. 225; Jaques v. Company, 66 N.H. 482; Fitzgerald v. Company, 155 Mass. 155; Mahoney v. Dore, 155 Mass. 513. Inasmuch as the defendants operated their mill at night, it is claimed that the stairway should then have been lighted to render it reasonably safe. If the stairway was unsuitable for the use of the defendants' servants at night…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Fitzgerald v. Connecticut River Paper Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1891
- O'Maley v. South Boston Gas Light Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1893
- Mahoney v. DoreMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
- Mundle v. Hill Manufacturing Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1894
- Demars v. Glen Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1892
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Mizenis v. Sands Motel, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1975
- Hamel v. Newmarket Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1905
- Roy v. HodgeSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1907
- Dervin v. Amoskeag Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1923
- Stone v. JohnsonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1938
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.