Legal Opinion

Currier v. Whitin Machine Works

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided January 3, 1927PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWait, J.

This is an action by an employee against his employer for damages alleged to be due to a defective machine upon which he was working when injured. The employer was not a subscriber under the workmen’s compensation act, G. L. c. 152. This, however, does not relieve the plaintiff of the burden of proving that negligence of the employer was a proximate cause of the injury.

*84As was said in Mammott v. Worcester Consolidated Street Railway, 228 Mass. 282, 284, “There can be no negligence where there is no duty.” “The workmen’s compensation act does not enlarge the duty of an employer who is not a…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Lothrop v. Fitchburg RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1890
  2. Mammott v. Worcester Consolidated Street Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917
  3. Murray v. Nantasket Beach Steamboat Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1924
  4. Alvey v. American Writing Paper Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1903

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Enga v. SparksMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943
  2. Greem v. CohenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1937
  3. Fielding v. S. Z. Poli Realty Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1931
  4. Maciejewski v. Graton & Knight Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1947
  5. Fraioli v. New York, New Haven & Hartford RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934

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

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

Powered by the Exa API