Kleinest v. Kunhardt

Decision Date29 November 1893
CitationKleinest v. Kunhardt, 160 Mass. 230, 35 N. E. 458 (Mass. 1893)
PartiesKLEINEST v. KUNHARDT et al.
CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

The declaration is as follows:

"First count: And the plaintiff says that on the 8th day of July A.D.1892, he was in the employ of said defendants in their mill in Lawrence, and while in their employ in said mill and in the exercise of due care, he slipped on one of the passageways provided by the defendants in their mill to do their work in, between a washing machine and soap tubs, and fell upon said passageway, and in the act of falling caught his right hand in the cogs of said machine, next to the side of said passageway, and the fingers of said right hand were thereby mangled and cut off. And the plaintiff says that said passageway was not safe and suitable for the said plaintiff to perform his duties in, and exposed him to danger while performing the same, for that he says said passageway was too narrow between said machine and tubs to perform his duties in, and so continually wet and slippery with soapy water as to be unsafe and unsuitable to walk and work upon; and that the defendants were negligent in providing said passageway, unsuitable, unsafe, and dangerous for reasons aforesaid; and by reason whereof the plaintiff lost four fingers of his right hand, depriving him of the same for life. That for a long time he suffered great pain in body and mind, and lost the proceeds of his labor for a long time. Second count: And the plaintiff says that on the 8th day of July, A.D.1892, he was in the employ of the defendants in their mill in said Lawrence, and while in their employ in their said mill, and in the exercise of due care, he slipped and fell upon one of the passageways provided by the defendants in their said mill to do their work in, between a washing machine and some soap tubs, and in the act of falling caught his right hand in the cogs of said machine, next by side of said passageway, and the fingers of said right hand were mangled and cut off. And the plaintiff says that said passageway was not suitable and safe for him to perform his duties in, and exposed him to danger, for that he says that said passageway was so narrow between said machine and its exposed cogs and said tubs for him to perform his duties in, and the floor of the same so continually wet and slippery with soapy water, that the same were unsafe, unsuitable, and dangerous to work and walk upon; and that
...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
17 cases
  • St. Louis Cordage Co. v. Miller
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • November 12, 1903
    ...Minn. 78, 38 N.W. 814, wherein a boy in feeding rollers in a boilermaking shop permitted his hand to slip between them; Kleinest v.Kunhardt, 160 Mass. 230, 35 N.E. 458, wherein the servant fell upon a slippery floor and threw hand against a pulley, which injured it; Tuttle v. Detroit & Milw......
  • Wilbourn v. Charleston Cooperage Co.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • December 5, 1921
    ...Realty Co., 10 A. L. R. 242; 29 Cyc. 440; American Tobacco Co. v. Adams, 137 Ky. 414, cited in 9 N. C. C. A. at page 396; Kleinsest v. Kinhardt, 160 Mass. 230; Stamford Mill Co. v. Barnes, 103 Tex. 409, Case, 1913A, page 111; Spickernagle v. Woolworth & Co., reported in Ann. Cas. 1914A 132;......
  • Cudahy Packing Co. v. Marcan
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • March 11, 1901
    ...of accidents arising from the wet, greasy, and slippery floor, and the revolving cylinders of the chopping machine. Kleinest v. Kunhardt, 160 Mass. 230, 35 N.E. 458; O'Maley v. Light Co., 158 Mass. 135, 32 1119; Fisk v. Railroad Co., 158 Mass. 238, 33 N.E. 510; Glover v. Bolt Co. (Mo. Sup.)......
  • Cassady v. Boston & A.R.r.
    • United States
    • Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • June 25, 1895
    ... ... 510; Gleason v. Railroad Co., 159 Mass. 68, 34 N.E ... 79; Daigle v. Manufacturing Co., 159 Mass. 378, 34 ... N.E. 458; Kleinest v. Kunhardt, ... ...
  • Get Started for Free