Sofield v. Guggenheim Smelting Co.
Supreme Court of New Jersey
On error to the Supreme Court. Tin's cause was tried at the Middlesex Circuit at the April Term, 1899, before Mr. Justice Collins and a jury, and a verdict of $3,000 rendered for the plaintiff below.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Lippincott, J.
Charles Sofield, the intestate of the plaintiff below, was, on July 11th, 1898, in the employment of the defendant as one of its workmen, in its smelting furnace .and copper factory at Perth Amboy. Just after midnight of that day, at a very early hour in the morning, whilst on his way into the yard of the factory, along a passageway beside a tank or shot-pit containing water which had become heated by molten copper being thrown into it, fell into the same and was scalded. He immediately got out without assistance, but he died in the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Quebec Steamship Co. v. MerchantSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Filbert v. President, Managers and Co. of the Delaware & Hudson Canal Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Curley v. HoffSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1899
- Walker v. Boston & Maine RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1879
3Cited by6 opinions
- Southern Indiana Railway Co. v. HarrellIndiana Supreme Court · 1903
- Fraser v. Smith & Kelly Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1911
- Morris & Co. v. AlvisSupreme Court of Virginia · 1921
- Kennedy v. Netherlands American Steam Navigation Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1909
- Young v. Federal Match Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1908
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.