Kelley v. Laraway.Same v. J.A. Laraway Co.
| Decision Date | 03 March 1916 |
| Citation | 111 N.E. 794,223 Mass. 182 |
| Parties | KELLEY v. LARAWAY. SAME v. J. A. LARAWAY CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Wm. F. Dana, Judge.
Action by Joshua C. Kelley against Jonas the J. A. Laraway Company. Verdicts for plaintiff, and defendants except. Exceptions overruled.
Sherman & Hurd and Roland H. Sherman, all of Boston, for plaintiff.
Jos. J. Feely and Fred Joy, both of Boston, for defendants.
The dwelling house was heated by a hot water system, known as a Mills heater. Originally the hot water for domestic purposes was obtained by means of an automatic gas appliance. In August, 1913, after the plaintiff had purchased the house, he installed therein a forty-gallon copper tank or boiler, the water in which was heated by means of a coil of pipe located in the firepot of the Mills heater, and connected with the boiler. A relief or safety valve was attached over the set tub in the laundry. In December a ventilator was placed on the chimney, to increase the draft. Later the hot water from the copper boiler kept leaking out to the supply pipes, and burning out the packing in the water meter; and in accordance with the order of the town inspector, a check-valve was inserted between the meter and the copper tank on February 19, 1914. On February 22, the copper tank exploded, causing the injuries complained of. The original plumbing and all of the work above mentioned was done by the defendant J. A. Laraway Company, under the personal direction of the other defendant, Jonas A. Laraway. The two cases were tried together, and in both the cause of action, the facts and the verdict were the same. As there can be but one satisfaction, we shall refer alike to each as the defendant.
The case was submitted to the jury on these grounds of alleged negligence on the part of the defendant: First, that the coil of pipe installed in the Mills heater was too large for heating a forty-gallon tank; second, that the safety valve had an outlet of one-fourth of an inch while the inlet from the boiler was three-eighths of an inch, and hence was not a proper and safe device in connection with the existing system; third, that the safety valve was not properly located, in that it was near a window in the laundry, on the north side of the house, instead of on top of or near the hot water boiler or tank. It was further contended that the defendant was negligent in putting in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Larkin v. Ralph O. Porter, Inc.
...work in a workmanlike manner. See Friese v. Boston Consol. Gas Co., 324 Mass. 623, 628, 88 N.E.2d 1 (1949), citing Kelley v. Laraway, 223 Mass. 182, 184, 111 N.E. 794 (1916). Such an implied agreement, according to Porter, necessarily includes an agreement to indemnify Porter when Cebco is ......
-
Horton v. Inhabitants of North Attleboro
... ... the doctrine of Rathgeber v. Kelley, 299 Mass. 444 , ... and cases cited ... [302 Mass. 142] ... the approved usages of ... [the] trade" (Kelley v ... Laraway, 223 Mass. 182 , 184), and of using "the ... ordinary care of the man of ... ...
-
Horton v. Inhabitants of North Attleboro
...the business ‘with reasonable judgment, skill and care, according to the approved usages of * * * [the] trade’ (Kelley v. Laraway, 223 Mass. 182, 184, 111 N.E. 794, 795), and of using ‘the ordinary care of the man of common prudence * * * in view of the facts accessible to and likely to be ......
-
Corrao v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
...the defendant's man left the job, and that it was negligent installation to leave the completed work in that condition. Kelley v. Laraway, 223 Mass. 182, 111 N.E. 794;Barabe v. Duhrkop Oven Co., 231 Mass. 466, 121 N.E. 415;Kelly v. Pittsfield Coal Gas Co., 257 Mass. 441, 154 N.E. 74. This c......