Brito v. Newmarket Manufacturing Co.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Action, for personal injuries. Trial by jury and verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant’s motions for a nonsuit and a directed verdict were denied subject to exception. The facts appear in the opinion. Transferred by Allen, J., from the January term, 1918, of the superior court.
1Opinion of the CourtWalker, J.
The plaintiff was injured while at work on a machine Called a comber, which he had stopped by using a shipping rod. His purpose was to take off some rolls and clean off some waste that had accumulated in the machine. While he was doing this the machine started, caught his hand, and inflicted the injury complained of. There was evidence that if the machine was in proper condition it would not start up, after it had been stopped by moving the shipping rod, until the rod was pushed the other way. As tending to prove that the machine was defective the plaintiff testified that he had seen the man…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Connolly v. Nicollet HotelSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1960
- Beery v. BreedAppellate Court of Illinois · 1941
- Hussey v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1926
- Woodman v. PeckSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1939
- Beardsell v. Tilton SchoolSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1938
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.