Buxton v. Works
| Decision Date | 15 January 1877 |
| Parties | William E. Buxton v. Somerset Potters' Works |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Argued November 8, 1876
Essex. Tort for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff while in the defendant's employ, in attempting to oil a part of the machinery of a steam-engine. Trial in the Superior Court before Pitman, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions in substance as follows:
It was admitted that the plaintiff, immediately after the accident stated to Leonard C. Pierce, the superintendent of the defendant, that it was through his own carelessness that he was injured. The plaintiff then attempted to prove by Pierce that, at the time when this admission was made, the said plaintiff was laboring under severe pain and suffering, the result of the injuries which he had sustained. To prove that the plaintiff was in extreme pain at that time, the following questions were asked by the plaintiff's counsel of Pierce, who was not on the stand as an expert: 1. "Did you at the time think the plaintiff was seriously injured?" (it not appearing at the time that witness had examined the injuries which the plaintiff had sustained.) 2. "Did you think he was suffering severely?" These questions were admitted, and the defendant excepted.
The defendant attempted to prove that the plaintiff was injured through his own carelessness, and called one Arnold, as an expert engineer, and asked him the following question: "As an expert engineer, being thoroughly conversant with the machinery and the attendant risks in running said machinery, do you think the plaintiff, in oiling that pulley, could have been injured unless he was careless?" The judge excluded the question, and the defendant excepted.
It being admitted that the plaintiff knew that the work he undertook was dangerous in some respects, but, he denying that he knew of the peril by which he was injured, the defendant attempted to show that the fact that the plaintiff had refused to perform the work at first, and only consented at length to perform it because he feared that if he did not he would be discharged, made him guilty of contributory negligence, and that, being injured in the performance of the work, he could not recover, and asked the following ruling: "When a servant, believing there is danger in performing work which he has been requested to perform, refuses to perform it, but afterwards undertakes the work because he fears being discharged, he does so voluntarily, and, if he is injured in so doing, cannot recover.' The judge refused so to rule.
The jury found for the plaintiff; and the defendant alleged exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.
J. W. Cummings, for the defendant.
S. B. Ives, Jr. & E. T. Burley, for the plaintiff.
The question addressed to the witness Pierce was put on his cross-examination. He had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Niziolek
...the civil action.' Mead v. Boston, 3 Cush. 404, 407 [1849]. The plea may be explained and reasons shown for entering it. Buxton v. Somerset Potters' Works, 121 Mass. 446 [,448 (1877) ]. Minasian v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 295 Mass. 1, 3 [3 N.E.2d 17 (1936) ], and cases cited." Aetna urges us t......
-
Arsenault v. Com.
...credibility or force of the admissions. Morrissey v. Powell, 304 Mass. 268, 269, 23 N.E.2d 411, 124 A.L.R. 1522. See Buxton v. Somerset Potters' Works, 121 Mass. 446, 448. Cf. Stovall v. Denno, Warden, 388 U.S. 293, 299, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199. We think too that the retroactive appl......
-
Flood v. Southland Corp., 91-P-440
...civil action.' Mead v. Boston, 3 Cush. 404, 407 [1849]. The plea may be explained and the reasons shown for entering it. Buxton v. Somerset Potters' Works, 121 Mass. 446 448 (1877). Minasian v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 295 Mass. 1, 3, 3 N.E.2d 17 [1936], and cases cited." Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. ......
-
Lomoe v. Superior Water, Light & Power Co.
...N. W. 433;Mellor v. Utica, 48 Wis. 457, 4 N. W. 655;Wylie v. Wausau, 48 Wis. 506, 4 N. W. 682;Tuttle v. Lawrence, 119 Mass. 276;Buxton v. Somerset, 121 Mass. 446;Meehan v. Railway Co., 13 N. D. 432, 101 N. W. 183;Hunt v. Kile, 98 Fed. 49, 38 C. C. A. 641;New York E. Co. v. Blair, 79 Fed. 89......