Butler v. Frazee
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. The facts are stated in the opinion. ■ The master is under obligation not to expose servants, when ..conducting the master's business, to perils or hazards against which they may be guarded by proper diligence on the part of the master; The defendant in error, under the implied contract'between employér and employe, was negligent in failing to so adjust the guard that it would prevent plaintiff’s hands from coming…
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. The facts are stated in the opinion. ■ The master is under obligation not to expose servants, when ..conducting the master's business, to perils or hazards against which they may be guarded by proper diligence on the part of the master; The defendant in error, under the implied contract'between employér and employe, was negligent in failing to so adjust the guard that it would prevent plaintiff’s hands from coming into contact with the - dangerous machinery; Hough’s Case, 100 U. S. 213; McDaniels’ Case, 107 U. S. 454; Herbert’s Case,…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Moody
delivered the opinion of the court..
The plaintiff in error brought an action against the defend ant in error in'the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, in which she sought to recover damages for injuries suffered by her while in the defendant’s employ. The injuries were incurred while the defendant was operating a mangle in the defendant’s steam laundry. The function of the.machine was to iron and dry clothes by drawing them between a cylinder and a series of rollers. The cylinder was of steel, four feet in diameter and eight feet long, and heated by steam. Above and in contact with it…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Patton v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1901
- Washington & Georgetown Railroad v. McDadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Schlemmer v. Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburg Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1907
- Tuttle v. Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee RailwaySupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Hickey v. . TaaffeNew York Court of Appeals · 1887
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by91 opinions
- Tichnell v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1980
- Morrison v. MacNamaraDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1979
- In Re PorterfieldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
- Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad v. KoskeSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
- Southern Pacific Co. v. BerkshireSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
86 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.