Levesque v. Janson
| Decision Date | 29 November 1895 |
| Citation | 42 N.E. 335,165 Mass. 16 |
| Parties | LEVESQUE v. JANSON. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Frank A. Pease, for plaintiff.
Hugo A. Dubuque, for defendant.
The plaintiff had worked for the defendant seven or eight months before the accident, and during all that time had used the horse to run the delivery wagon, and had harnessed and unharnessed the horse daily. He testified that he knew that the horse was vicious and ugly, and that the harness was old and worn and rotten; that he repaired it several times with ropes and strings; and that the belly band and holdbacks were rope. He also testified that the accident happened on Monday, and that, on the Friday or Saturday previous, he spoke to the defendant about the harness, which had broken again, and the defendant told him to fix it for the day the best way he could, and complete his route, and he would fix it or give him a new one. He further testified that, on the morning of the day of the accident, "there was another harness in the stable, good and new"; that he harnessed the horse with the old harness, and continued to work till 12 o'clock, and resumed work at 1, and the accident occurred about half past 2. It does not appear that the plaintiff could not have used the new harness if he had seen fit to; and we think that the case shows such a combination of vicious and ugly horse and old and rotten harness that an accident was reasonably to have been expected, and that the plaintiff was wanting in due care in using them together. Rooney v. Cordage Co., 161 Mass. 153, 36 N.E. 789; Goodes v. Railroad Co., 162 Mass. 287, 38 N.E. 500. The promise of the defendant that he would fix the harness, or get a new one, was not a sufficient excuse. Wescott v. Railroad Co., 153 Mass. 460, 27 N.E. 10; Lewis v. Same, 153 Mass. 73, 26 N.E. 431. Besides, a new harness appears to have been furnished. Exceptions overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company v. Mangan
...2. He assumed the risk in stepping off at a place known to be dangerous when he could have stepped off at some other place just as well. 165 Mass. 16; 137 Ind. 208; 129 327; 112 Id. 592; 130 Id. 242; 136 Id. 242; 79 Me. 297; 12 Ill.App. 369. And this is true even when a promise to repair by......
-
Chandler v. Gloyd
...Co., 139 N.Y. 369; Piper v. Cambira Iron Co., 78 Md. 249; Hathaway v. Railroad, 92 Ia. 337; McCinnon v. Narcross, 148 Mass. 533; Levesque v. Janson, 165 Mass. 16; Rawley v. Collian, 90 Mich. 31. (6) At the time he dug the excavation, Knight, though the nominal servant of the Gloyds, was in ......
-
Central Lumber Co. v. Porter
... ... Co. Ct. 378; Eshner v. Mineral R. & Min ... Co., 28 Pa. S.Ct. 387; Armington v. Providence Ice ... Co., 82 A. (R. I.) 263; Levesquie v. Janson, 42 N.E ... Furthermore, ... it appears from Daniel Williams' testimony that appellee ... deliberately assumed further risk, in that he ... ...
-
Daily v. Fiberloid Co.
... ... Railroad, 153 Mass. 73, 26 N.E. 431, 10 L. R. A. 513; ... Westcott v. New York & New England Railroad, 153 ... Mass. 460, 27 N.E. 10; Levesque v. Janson, 165 Mass ... 16, 42 N.E. 335; Silvia v. Wampanoag Mills, 177 ... Mass. 194, 58 N.E. 590. See, also, District of Columbia ... v ... ...