Legal Opinion

Ryan v. Chelsea Paper Manufacturing Co.

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided July 13, 1897PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Action to recover damages for personal injuries claimed to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant, brought to the Superior Court in New London County and heard in damages to the court, Thayer, J. ; facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff for $1,500 damages, and appeal by the defendant for alleged errors in the rulings of the court. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtHameesley, J.

The defendant operated in one room in its factory three Fourdrinier machines for drying paper, known as No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3, respectively. Each machine was tended by two workmen, one called a “ machine-tender ” and the other a “ back-tender.” The plaintiff had been in the employ of the defendant as a back-tender on machine No. 3 for about twenty-two months, when, while temporarily tending machine No. 2, his hand was caught in the machinery and injured so that amputation was necessary. The plain tiff brings this action to recover of the defendant damages for his injury ; alleging in the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Farrell v. Waterbury Horse R. R. Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1891
  2. O'Keefe v. National Folding Box & Paper Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1895

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Britt v. Doty, Adm'xSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1945
  2. Anderson v. United States Rubber Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1905
  3. McCalman v. Illinois Cent. R.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1914
  4. Fitzgerald v. Brooklyn Institute of Arts & SciencesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1916
  5. Goodhart v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1911

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API