Legal Opinion

Loring v. Maine Central Railroad

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided November 25, 1930PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSturgis, J.

This action of tort to recover damages for injuries received by the plaintiff while employed by the defendant *371Railroad Company, as a signal helper, comes before the Law Court on exceptions to the refusal of the presiding Justice to direct a verdict for the defendant, and on a general motion.

The plaintiff, declaring in negligence at common law, alleges that the defendant is a non-assenting employer of more than five workmen, and invokes the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, R. S., Chap. 50, as amended by P. L. 1919, Chap. 238, which bars the common law defenses (a) that the…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Seaboard Air Line Railway v. HortonSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
  2. Patton v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1901
  3. New York Central Railroad Company v. WinfieldSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
  4. Southern Railway Co. v. GraySupreme Court of the United States · 1916
  5. Mather v. RillstonSupreme Court of the United States · 1895

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Kimball v. ClarkSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1935
  2. Lyle v. Bangor & Aroostook Railroad Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1954
  3. Michalka v. GREAT NORTHERN PAPER COMPANYSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1955
  4. Moose-A-Bec Quarries Co. v. Eastern Tractor & Equipment Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1942
  5. Maine Cent. R. v. LoringCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1932

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

Powered by the Exa API