Straw v. Pittsfield Shoe Co.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Case, for negligence. Trial by jury and verdict for the plaintiff. Transferred from the April term, 1910, of the superior court by Wallace, C. J., on the defendants’ exception to the denial of their motion for the direction of a verdict in their favor.
1Opinion of the CourtPeaslee, J.
The defendants’ motion for a directed verdict was based upon the ground (among others) that the place where the plaintiff was injured was not one where his duty required him to be, or where the defendants ought to have anticipated he would go, and therefore they owed him no duty to make the place safe. He was injured by being caught upon pins projecting from a revolving shaft located nine inches from the rear wall of an open wood-shed and nearly two feet above the ground. Timbers six inches square and about as high as the shaft formed the frame supporting it, the front timber being about…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Morrison v. Burgess Sulphite Fibre Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1900
3Cited by5 opinions
- Hussey v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1926
- Saunders v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1927
- Dobek v. Amoskeag Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1920
- Nolette v. Manchester Rendering Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1924
- York v. ClowSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1932