Allison v. Brown & Horsch Insulation Co.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
1Opinion of the CourtKenison, C. J.
One of the principal issues in these cases is whether drinking by the plaintiffs constitutes a bar to compensation under the intoxication provision of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. The governing provisions (Laws 1947, c. 266, s. 13) are as follows: “Employee’s fault. The employer shall not be liable for any injury to a workman which is caused in whole or in part by the intoxication, or serious and wilful misconduct of the workman. The provisions as to intoxication shall not apply, however, if the employer knew that the employee was intoxicated.”
The plain wording of section 13 makes…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Claim of Katz v. A. Kadans & Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1922
- Irwin-Neisler & Co. v. Industrial CommissionIllinois Supreme Court · 1931
- Hopwood v. PittsburghSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1943
- Ginther v. J. P. Graham Transfer Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1943
- Parotto v. Standard Paving Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1952
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Heinz v. Concord Union School DistrictSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1977
- Appeal of PhillipsSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2013
- Home Indemnity Co. v. WhiteCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1980
- Hernández López v. Comisión IndustrialSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1972
- Hernández López v. Industrial CommissionSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1972
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.