Hall v. Henry Thayer & Co.
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
| Writing for the Court | BRALEY |
| Citation | 113 N.E. 644,225 Mass. 151 |
| Decision Date | 13 September 1916 |
| Parties | HALL v. HENRY THAYER & CO. HILL v. SAME. |
225 Mass. 151
113 N.E. 644
HALL
v.
HENRY THAYER & CO.
HILL
v.
SAME.
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.
Sept. 13, 1916.
Report from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Geo. A. Sanderson, Judge.
Actions by Grace Hall, Administratrix, and by Julia A. Hill, Administratrix, against Henry Thayer & Company. Verdict ordered in each case for the defendant and cases reported to the full court for the determination of the questions of defendant's liability for the death of plaintiffs' intestates, and whether plaintiffs could maintain the actions. Judgment for the plaintiff in the stipulated amount ordered to be entered in each case, in accordance with the terms of the report.
Claude [225 Mass. 155]L. Allen and Raymond T. Parke, both of Boston, for plaintiffs.
Sawyer, Hardy, Stone & Morrison, of Boston (Edward defendant.
[225 Mass. 152]BRALEY, J.
The plaintiffs sue in tort for the death without conscious suffering of their respective intestates, employees of one Shaw, who were killed on March 28, 1913, while at work on the defendant's water tank which Shaw had contracted to repair. A verdict in each case having been ordered and returned for the defendant, the cases are here on the report of the presiding judge in which not only the question of the defendant's liability for the death of the intestates but also the question whether the plaintiffs can maintain the actions, is raised.
The declarations were not demurred to, and we assume that although not alleged, the decedents left either a widow and children, or a widow and next of kin, for whose sole benefit damages are given under R. L. c. 171, § 2, as amended, for death caused by the negligence of a person or corporation of those not in his or its employment or service. Oulighan v. Butler, 189 Mass. 287, 289, 75 N. E. 726.
We assume from the report that the administratrices are respectively the widows of the deceased employees. It is also stated that the parties agreed that Shaw was a subscriber and the insurance company has been ordered under the Workmen's Compensation Act to pay compensation to the widow for a period of three hundred weeks from the date of death of each employee. The death of the decedents having been caused by the alleged negligence of the defendant and the plaintiffs having elected to take compensation, they cannot maintain the actions for their own benefit. St. 1911, c. 751, pt. 3, § 15, as amended by St. 1913, c. 448, § 1.1Turnquist v. Hannon, 219 Mass. 561, 107 N. E. 443;[225 Mass. 153]Barry v. Bay State St. Ry., 222 Mass. 366, 110 N. E. 1031. See Cripps' Case, 216 Mass. 586, 104 N. E. 565, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 828. The right conferred upon the association or insurer by section 15 is to bring suit against the wrongdoer either in the name of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rich v. U.S. Lines, Inc., No. 78-1261
...Mulvanny, 168 Ill. 311, 48 N.E. 168 (1897); Lincoln v. Appalachian Corp., 146 La. 23, 83 So. 364, 7 A.L.R. 1697 (1919); Hall v. Thayer, 225 Mass. 151, 113 N.E. 644 (1916); Jewell v. Kansas City Bolt & Nut Co., 231 Mo. 176, 132 S.W. 703, 140 Am.St.Rep. 515 (1910); Stevens v. United Gas & Ele......
-
Montellier v. United States, Civ. No. 19699.
...defense. The Massachusetts courts do not appear to have considered the question directly, although dictum in Hall v. Henry Thayer & Co., 225 Mass. 151, 113 N.E. 644 (1916) suggests that it may. Were the 202 F. Supp. 395 Massachusetts courts to consider the point directly, insofar as assumpt......
-
Nugent v. Boston Consol. Gas Co.
...359, 360, 82 N. E. 15,13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1177;Garland v. Townsend, 217 Mass. 297, 300, 301, 104 N. E. 731;Hall v. Henry Thayer & Co., 225 Mass. 151, 154, 113 N. E. 644. The defendant, if through its negligence gas accumulated and remained in the manhole, is liable for the natural and proba......
-
Eaton v. Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins. Co.
...writ that the action was brought for the benefit of the trustee. Kelly v. Greany, 216 Mass. 296, 103 N. E. 779;Hall v. Henry Thayer Co., 225 Mass. 151, 153, 113 N. E. 644. It does not appear that there were any defenses open to the defendants if the trustee had sued which were not available......
-
Rich v. U.S. Lines, Inc., No. 78-1261
...Mulvanny, 168 Ill. 311, 48 N.E. 168 (1897); Lincoln v. Appalachian Corp., 146 La. 23, 83 So. 364, 7 A.L.R. 1697 (1919); Hall v. Thayer, 225 Mass. 151, 113 N.E. 644 (1916); Jewell v. Kansas City Bolt & Nut Co., 231 Mo. 176, 132 S.W. 703, 140 Am.St.Rep. 515 (1910); Stevens v. United Gas & Ele......
-
Montellier v. United States, Civ. No. 19699.
...defense. The Massachusetts courts do not appear to have considered the question directly, although dictum in Hall v. Henry Thayer & Co., 225 Mass. 151, 113 N.E. 644 (1916) suggests that it may. Were the 202 F. Supp. 395 Massachusetts courts to consider the point directly, insofar as assumpt......
-
Nugent v. Boston Consol. Gas Co.
...359, 360, 82 N. E. 15,13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1177;Garland v. Townsend, 217 Mass. 297, 300, 301, 104 N. E. 731;Hall v. Henry Thayer & Co., 225 Mass. 151, 154, 113 N. E. 644. The defendant, if through its negligence gas accumulated and remained in the manhole, is liable for the natural and proba......
-
Eaton v. Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins. Co.
...writ that the action was brought for the benefit of the trustee. Kelly v. Greany, 216 Mass. 296, 103 N. E. 779;Hall v. Henry Thayer Co., 225 Mass. 151, 153, 113 N. E. 644. It does not appear that there were any defenses open to the defendants if the trustee had sued which were not available......