McGonigle v. O'Neill
| Decision Date | 23 February 1922 |
| Parties | McGONIGLE v. O'NEILL et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Patrick M. Keating, Judge.
Action by Edward A. McGonigle against Arthur H. O'Neill and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring exceptions. Exceptions overruled.
Plaintiff was in defendant's employ, and was instructed by one of the defendants to fix awnings in front of their place of business, and for that purpose selected a stepladder from several others. He was injured by the breaking of the ladder, throwing him to the ground. Defendant moved for a directed verdict, and also requested the following instructions and rulings, which indicate the nature of their contentions and which were refused:
‘(6) If the jury find that the plaintiff, standing upon the next to the top round of a 10-foot ladder, tied to a brass rail about 4 feet from the ground, with a rope to one of its legs, said ladder standing upon a sidewalk which sloped from the building to the curbstone, so that the top of the ladder was further away from the building than the bottom, working upon an awning which was above his head and attached to the building, without having requested his employer to furnish a man to hold the ladder, and the left leg of the ladder broke by reason of the great strain placed upon it, they must find that the danger was open and obvious, and that the plaintiff assumed said risk, consequently their verdict must be for the defendants.’
‘(8) If the jury find that the plaintiff knew, or in the exercise of due care ought to have known, that the position of the ladder placed on a sloping sidewalk so that the top was further away from the window than the bottom was, without asking his employer to furnish a man to hold it and used it without objection, he assumed the risk and cannot recover.’
John J. Walsh, of Boston, for plaintiff.
Robert T. Healey and Arthur D. Healey, both of Boston, for defendants.
[3] This is an action of tort at common law to recover compensation for personal injuries received in 1918 by the plaintiff while employed in the usual course of their business by the defendants, who were not insured under the Workmen's Compensation Act. It is no defense that the plaintiff was negligent or had assumed the risk of injury. St. 1911, c. 751, part 1, § 1; G. L. c. 152, § 66. The only question is whether there was any evidence of negligence of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Opinion of the Justices
...the negligence of the defendant,’ which, of course, imports negligence that is a cause of the plaintiff's injury. See McGonigle v. O'Neill, 240 Mass. 262, 263, 133 N.E. 918;Hutchinson v. Sovrensky, 267 Mass. 5, 6, 165 N.E. 698. There was a like use of the word ‘defense’ in said § 66, when f......
-
Armburg v. Boston & M.R.R.
...exceptions not here material, is denied to an uninsured employer. Bernabeo v. Kaulback, 226 Mass. 128, 115 N. E. 279;McGonigle v. O'Neill, 240 Mass. 262, 263, 133 N. E. 918. It was assumed that the act was so applicable for the purposes of the decision in Ashton v. Boston & Maine Railroad, ......
-
Reidy v. Crompton & Knowles Loom Works
...is whether there was evidence of negligence of the defendant which contributed to cause an injury to the deceased. McGonigle v. O'Neill, 240 Mass. 262, 133 N.E. 918;Sylvain v. Boston & Maine R. R., 280 Mass. 503, 182 N.E. 835;Walsh v. Boston & Maine R. R., 284 Mass. 250, 187 N.E. 554. See n......
-
Cronan v. Armitage
...to another. DeMarco v. Pease, 253 Mass. 499, 506, 149 N. E. 208;Garber v. Levine, 250 Mass. 485, 146 N. E. 21;McGonigle v. O'Neill, 240 Mass. 262, 133 N. E. 918;Ryan v. Fall River Iron Works Co., 200 Mass. 188, 192, 86 N. E. 310;Hopkins v. O'Leary, 176 Mass. 258, 264, 57 N. E. 342. There wa......