Riggie v. Grand Trunk Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Vermont
Tort por Negligence under tbe Employers’ Liability Act. Pleas, the general issue, and assumption of risk. Trial by jury at the April Term, 1918, Essex County, Slack, J., presiding. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant excepted. The opinion states the case.
1Opinion of the CourtMiles, J.
The main question to be considered here is whether the defendant furnished the plaintiff, its servant, with a reasonably safe instrumentality, called a jack, with which to perform his duties. The jack was used by the plaintiff in lining up the defendant’s railroad tracks, and consisted of an upright rack or standard with cbgs or teeth on one side and a projection at right angles to the standard on the other side. To this standard, on the side having the teeth or cogs, an arrangement was attached, to which one end of a socket, several inches in length, was fastened in a manner allowing the…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Wentworth v. Town of WaterburySupreme Court of Vermont · 1916
- French v. Grand Trunk Railway Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1904
- Harrington v. Rutland RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1915
- Carter v. Central Vermont RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1900
- State v. ManningSupreme Court of Vermont · 1903
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Wellman, Admr. v. WalesSupreme Court of Vermont · 1925
- Gero v. John Hancock Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Vermont · 1941
- Neill v. WardSupreme Court of Vermont · 1930
- Merrihew's Admr. v. GoodspeedSupreme Court of Vermont · 1929
- Izor v. BrighamSupreme Court of Vermont · 1941
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.