Watts v. Derry Shoe Co.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
1Opinion of the CourtPlummer, J.
It was the duty of the defendants to furnish a reasonably safe place for the plaintiff to work. Morrison v. Company, 70 N. H. 406; Edwards v. Tilton Mills, 70 N. H. 574; English v. Amidon, 72 N. H. 301; Smith v. Railroad, 73 N. H. 325; Leazotte v. Company, 74 N. H. 480; Osman v. Company, 78 N. H. 597. The plaintiff was an assistant forelady in the defendants’ stitching room. A part of her work was to carry and distribute shoe tops among the operatives in the room. The evidence tended to prove that at the time of the accident she was carrying on her left arm such material, and that she turned…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Morrison v. Burgess Sulphite Fibre Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1900
- Seeton v. DunbartonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1905
- English v. AmidonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1903
- Leavitt v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1903
- Smith v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1905
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Tashjian v. Boston & Maine R. R.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1935
- Jutras v. Amoskeag Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1929