Bodwell v. Nashua Mfg. Co.
| Decision Date | 27 July 1900 |
| Citation | 47 A. 613,70 N.H. 390 |
| Parties | BODWELL v. NASHUA MFG. CO. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Action by William D. Bodwell against the Nashua Manufacturing Company.
Case for personal injuries alleged to have been received by the plaintiff while a night watchman in the defendant's mills by reason of its neglect to provide him a safe place in which to work. The plaintiff's evidence tended to prove that on the night in question his way was obstructed by some planks which had been insecurely piled by carpenters during the preceding day; that he saw the planks, and walked safely over them once, but on his return caught his foot and fell; that his view was obscured by escaping steam, and that a week before the defendant had promised to repair the pipe from which the steam escaped, but had failed to do so. There was no evidence that the plaintiff suggested that the escape of the steam made his work more dangerous, or that he thought of quitting the employment unless repairs were made. A nonsuit was ordered, subject to exception. Exceptions overruled.
Henry B. Atherton, for plaintiff.
George B. French and Burnham, Brown & Warren, for defendant.
If there were any dangers which contributed to the plaintiffs injury of which he was not fully informed, they were caused by the acts of his fellow servants. Nash v. Steel Co., 62 N. H. 406. The promise to repair was not shown to have any connection with the plaintiff's continuation in the employment. "No case * * * has gone so far as to hold that, where the servant does not complain on his own account and continues in his employment with full knowledge of the risk, he can recover of the master, because the latter, when the defective condition was called to his attention by the servant, gave assurances, which did not Induce the servant to remain, that the defect should be remedied." Lewis v. Railroad Co., 153 Mass. 73, 77, 26 N. E. 431. Exception overruled.
YOUNG, J., did not sit The others concurred.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McLaine v. Head &, Dowst Co.
...of servants employed, not to provide the place, but to do the work in the place. Nash v. Steel Co., 62 N. H. 406; Bodwell v. Manufacturing Co., 70 N. H. 390, 47 Atl. 613; Hussey v. Coger, 112 N. Y. 614, 618, 20 N. E. 556, 3 L. R. A. 559, 8 Am. St. Rep. 787; Cullen v. Norton, 126 N. Y. 1, 26......
-
Shurkus v. Gate City Foundry Co.
...it could be found either that the complaint, and the promise to repair, had reference to plaintiffs personal safety (Bodwell v. Nashua Mfg. Co., 70 N. H. 390, 47 A. 013; Labatt, §§ 1343, 1345, Bailey, Personal Injuries, § 428; Morden Frog & Crossing Works v. Fries, 228 Ill. 246, 251, 81 N. ......
-
Jutras v. Amoskeag Mfg. Co.
...v. Pierce, 72 N. H. 79, 54 A. 1014; McLaine v. Company, 71 N. H. 294, 52 A. 545, 58 L. R. A. 462, 93 Am. St. Rep. 522; Bodwell v. Company, 70 N. H. 390, 47 A. 613; Nash v. Company, 62 N. H. The case of Watts v. Company, 80 N. H. 152, 114 A. 859, does not conflict with this result, for the d......
-
Pekin Cooperage Co. v. Duty
...been directed for defendant, as plaintiff under the law and evidence assumed the risk. 4 Labatt on Master & Servant, § 1342; 95 Wis. 6; 70 N.H. 390; 7 420; 81 Ark. 343; 116 Id. 56. 4. The court erred in its instructions to the jury, Nos. 1, 2 and 3 given. Cases supra. Pace & Davis, for appe......