Dionne v. American Locomotive Co.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Case, for negligence. Trial by jury. The court directed a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff excepted. Transferred from the January term, 1910, of the superior court by Wallace, C. J. The evidence tended to prove the facts recited below. The plaintiff was thirty-four years old, of average intelligence, and a blacksmith by trade. He was not a machinist, but was employed by the defendant as a laborer or helper.
Read the full summary
Case, for negligence. Trial by jury. The court directed a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff excepted. Transferred from the January term, 1910, of the superior court by Wallace, C. J. The evidence tended to prove the facts recited below. The plaintiff was thirty-four years old, of average intelligence, and a blacksmith by trade. He was not a machinist, but was employed by the defendant as a laborer or helper. Besides lifting heavy castings and helping generally, he worked fitting up boiler doors, at which he was “very handy.” On the afternoon of the injury, after he had been in the…
1Opinion of the CourtPbaslee, J.
There is no claim of any want of care in supplying suitable instrumentalities, work-place, appliances, fellow-servants, rules, and regulations. As to all these matters it is conceded that the master’s duty was performed. There was nothing abnormal about the method adopted by the defendant for the conduct of its business. But it is claimed the plaintiff was ignorant of a fact essential to his safety, which the defendant knew or ought to have known, and of which he was not warned. Hence it is claimed the failure to warn may be found to be the legal cause of the injury. In other words, if the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Saunders v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1927
- Owen v. Elliot HospitalSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1927
- Paige v. M. T. Stevens & Son's Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1922
- Dobek v. Amoskeag Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1920