Brainard v. Van Dyke
Supreme Court of Vermont
Case for negligence. Came on for hearing upon demurrer to the replication, at the September term, 1898, Essex county, Taft, J., presiding. Judgment, pro forma that the demurrer be overruled and the replication adjudged sufficient. The defendant excepted. The pleadings are sufficiently stated in the opinion..
1Opinion of the CourtStart, J.
The negligence set forth in the declaration consisted in the defendant’s placing dynamite in a hot oven, situated in a dwelling house where the plaintiff was in the discharge of her duties as the defendant’s servant, with his knowledge, without notifying the plaintiff of the dangerous character of the dynamite. It is insisted by the defendant that the declaration is insufficient in that it is not alleged *361therein that the plaintiff did not know of the dangerous character of the dynamite. If the plaintiff knew of the dangerous character of the dynamite, she lost nothing by reason of the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co. v. JohnstonSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Mullen v. Old Colony RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1879
- Cohn v. . GoldmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1879
- Chamberlin v. FullerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1886
- Miller v. Minor Lumber Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1893
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Economou v. EconomouSupreme Court of Vermont · 1979
- Seeck v. JakelOregon Supreme Court · 1914
- Dunbar v. Central Vermont Railway Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1907
- Ellis's Admr. v. DurkeeSupreme Court of Vermont · 1906
- Helvetia Copper Co. v. Hart-Parr Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1919
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.