Tullgren v. Amoskeag Manufacturing Co.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.
It was the defendant’s custom to carry home employees taken sick while at work, but no claim is understood to be made that the custom showed any agreement for its observance so as to make it a term of the contract of employment, the validity of which made it a duty of the defendant to render the service. Without such duty it could in no event be maintained that the employee so served and the driver of the employer’s conveyance are fellow servants. And even if the duty thus exists, it would seem ineffective to produce such relationship. While cases hold that when the employer by the contract…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Dickinson v. West End Street Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1901
- Kilduff v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907
- Dayton Coal & Iron Co. v. DoddCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1911
- O'Bierne v. StaffordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1913
- Elmer v. Pittsburgh Railways Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
3Cited by53 opinions
- Hall v. EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co., Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1972
- Mosley v. Arden Farms Co.California Supreme Court · 1945
- Walls v. Oxford Management Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1993
- Zuber v. Clarkson Construction Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1952
- Marion v. Coffran v. Hitchcock Clinic, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1982
48 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.