Kruger v. Exeter Manufacturing Co.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
1Opinion of the CourtBranch, J.
The evidence of the defendant’s negligence was abundant. It is plain that the plaintiff received a specific order to perform an extremely dangerous task. Any adjustment of the clutch made while the pulley was running necessitated the use of tools inside the circumference of the revolving rim, in close proximity to the moving belt and within four or five inches of the rapidly whirling spokes. From the testimony of the plaintiff it appears that he had the first two perils, from the rim and the belt, definitely in mind. The reality of the rim danger was evidenced in a striking manner by the fact…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Mundle v. Hill Manufacturing Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1894
3Cited by10 opinions
- Papakalos v. ShakaSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1941
- Perreault v. Allen Oil Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1935
- Goldstein v. United Amusement Corp.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1933
- Bridges v. Great Falls Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1931
- Blais v. Flanders Hardware Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1945
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.