Koren v. Newmarket Manufacturing Co.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Case, for negligence. The plaintiff was a ring-spinner, in the defendants’ employ, and was injured while cleaning shafting. Trial by jury and verdict for the plaintiff. The defendants had accepted the provisions of chapter 163 of the Laws of 1911. The defendants excepted to the denial of their motions for a non-suit and a directed verdict, and to the argument of counsel. The facts are stated in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Case, for negligence. The plaintiff was a ring-spinner, in the defendants’ employ, and was injured while cleaning shafting. Trial by jury and verdict for the plaintiff. The defendants had accepted the provisions of chapter 163 of the Laws of 1911. The defendants excepted to the denial of their motions for a non-suit and a directed verdict, and to the argument of counsel. The facts are stated in the opinion. Transferred from the May term, 1920, of the superior court by Young, J.
1Opinion of the CourtPlummer, J.
The plaintiff was directed by the defendants to clean the shafting, which drove a line of spinning frames, while the machinery was in operation. The shafting was directly over the frames and from twelve to fourteen feet from the floor. He was told to use sandpaper and a rag in doing his work. He used a stepladder to-reach the shafting over the alleyways and stood on the frames to' reach the shafting over them. He had never cleaned shafting before, and was injured a few hours after he began work.
The evidence tended to prove that he was doing the work in the' way he was expected to do it; that…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Davis v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1910
- Lawrence v. TowleSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1879
- Turner v. Cocheco Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1910
- Janvrin v. PowersSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1918