Legal Opinion

Martel v. Wallace

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided April 3, 1928PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.

The hole in the floor was near a corner of a newly built room and had been left for the installation of an elevator from the floor below. With the room bare and well lighted as it was when the plaintiff was there, warning of the hole in an uncovered condition might be held unnecessary. But when the plaintiff went to the room to do his work, one of the defendants’ employees had just covered the hole with some pans ordinarily used to catch the drippings of oil underneath automobiles while in a garage. They were placed over the hole to keep the dust and dirt from dropping through it to the room…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Standard Oil Co. v. AndersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1909
  2. Delory v. BlodgettMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1904
  3. Kelly v. TyraSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
  4. Duart v. SimmonsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1918
  5. Hoadley v. International Paper Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1899

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Black v. MartinMontana Supreme Court · 1930
  2. Manock v. Amos D. Bridge's Sons, Inc.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1934

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

Powered by the Exa API