Hackett v. Middlesex Manufacturing Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort for injuries sustained by the plaintiff from the fall of the platform of an elevator, in consequence of a defect in its main chain.
Read the full summary
Tort for injuries sustained by the plaintiff from the fall of the platform of an elevator, in consequence of a defect in its main chain. Trial in the superior court, before Lord, J., who signed the following bill of exceptions: “ The plaintiff was an operative in the defendants’ factory in Lowell, and one of his duties was to see that beams with warps for the weavers were conveyed from the lowest or basement room to the weavers’ room, next immediately above, by means of an elevator. The elevator was a square platform with a chain from each corner converging towards the centre, and at a short…
1Opinion of the CourtHoar, J.
This case is one of a class which has become
quite numerous, in which the question arises whether a person who has received an injury from the alleged negligence of an - other was himself in the exercise of due care. The question what is due and reasonable care binder a particular state of circumstances is usually a question of fact for a jury. As the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to show that, he used due care, if the evidence on his part has no tendency to show it, or tends to show that he was careless, it is competent for the court in *104such, a case to direct a verdict for the…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Coombs v. New Bedford Cordage Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
- Sheff v. City of HuntingtonWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1880
- Graham v. BadgerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1895
- Cotton v. North Carolina R. R. Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
- Goodfellow v. Boston, Hartford & Erie RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.