Pittsley v. Allen
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
1Opinion of the CourtLummus, J.
The amended declaration is in three counts, one for the negligent injury and conscious suffering of the plaintiff’s intestate, an employee of the defendant in harvesting ice, and two others apparently based upon G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 229, § 7, for negligently causing the death of the plaintiff’s intestate. Neiss v. Burwen, 287 Mass. 82. The facts appear in the report of an auditor whose findings of fact were to be final.
The defendant was not insured under the workmen’s compensation act, and consequently cannot rely upon contributory negligence, voluntary assumption of risk, or the fellow…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Frese v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Inhabitants of Westfield v. MayoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1877
- Moynihan v. Hills Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888
- Howland v. StoweMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
- Cronan v. ArmitageMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Pittsley v. DavidMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1937
- Karcher v. BurbankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939
- Kelly v. DIMEO, INC. WATERPROOFING CO.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1991
- Vigneault v. Dr. Hewson Dental Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1938
- Holcomb v. FlavinIllinois Supreme Court · 1966
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.