Gosselin v. F. M. Hoyt Shoe Co.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
1Opinion of the CourtWalker, J.
The evidence justifies the following finding of facts. The plaintiff was about twenty years of age at the time of the accident and had been working for the defendant for some seven months. His work was to operate a compressing machine which pressed the taps on the soles, and to trim rubber soles with a knife. On the morning of the accident, after having completed the pressing of soles, he looked for his knife to use in trimming some rubber soles, and saw it on the floor under his bench where it had fallen. It was lying directly under a revolving wheel which operated the com-presser. Supposing…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Story v. Concord & Montreal RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1900
- Cavanaugh v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1911
- Beckley v. AlexanderSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1914
- Connecticut River Power Co. v. DickinsonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1909
3Cited by4 opinions
- Williams v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1926
- Knapp Ex Rel. Thayer v. StoneSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1918
- Voullgaris v. GianarisSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1920
- Potter v. MoodySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1918