Rhoades v. Varney
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On Motion by Defendants. This was an action on the case in which the plaintiff recovered a verdict of $1200 for a leg broken by the defendants’ negligence. The case appears in the opinion. When plaintiff, then, put his leg where it was caught by the retreating carriage, he knew, or should have known, the inevitable consequence of his action. He could and did choose where he would stand. Moreover, he knew the carriage would retreat without notice to him.
Read the full summary
On Motion by Defendants. This was an action on the case in which the plaintiff recovered a verdict of $1200 for a leg broken by the defendants’ negligence. The case appears in the opinion. When plaintiff, then, put his leg where it was caught by the retreating carriage, he knew, or should have known, the inevitable consequence of his action. He could and did choose where he would stand. Moreover, he knew the carriage would retreat without notice to him. Flynn v. Campbell, 160 Mass. 128; Perry v. O. C. B. B., 164 Mass. 296; McLean v. Gfhem. Paper Co., 165 Mass. 5; McCann v. Kennedy, 167 Mass.…
1Opinion of the CourtFoster, J.
The plaintiff was employed to attend the' “tail-stock” in defendants’ saw-mill, and while so doing his leg was *224broken by being caught between a projecting point, or head block, of the retreating log carriage and the frame supports of wooden rollers set in the floor and designed to facilitate handling the lumber as it came from the carriage. One of the defendants was the sawyer, stationed near the saw, whose duty it was to operate the carriage, and the negligence which the plaintiff alleges consisted in his “ carelessly, negligently, and without notice, starting the machinery operating said…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Rueping v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1904
- Savoy v. ButlerSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1953