Jutras v. Amoskeag Manufacturing Co.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
1Opinion of the CourtMarble, J.
The plaintiff’s sole claim is based upon the alleged failure of the defendant to furnish her a safe work-place. She does not contend that this alleged failure was due to any structural defect in the premises but merely to the defendant’s method of washing the floor. Ordinarily such work would constitute an act of service, creating mere transitory perils and giving rise to no liability on the part of an employer who had furnished safe materials and made proper rules. Smith v. Railroad, 73 N. H. 325; Manning v. Manchester Mills, 70 N. H. 582.
The frames in the spinning room where the accident…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Galvin v. PierceSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1903
- Bodwell v. Nashua Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1900
- Smith v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1905
- Manning v. Manchester MillsSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1900
- Nash v. Nashua Iron & Steel Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1882
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Bradford Electric Light Co. v. ClapperSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Bradford Elec. Light Co. v. ClapperSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Blake v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
- Blake v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1953