Paige v. McCarty
| Decision Date | 10 June 1912 |
| Citation | 83 A. 659,86 Vt. 127 |
| Parties | PAIGE v. MCCARTY. |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Windsor County Court; Eleazer L. Waterman, Judge.
Action by William Paige against J. W. McCarty. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings exceptions. Affirmed.
It appeared that defendant was the keeper of a livery stable, and that plaintiff was in his employ; that in the basement of the stable there were a number of stalls; that at the time of the accident plaintiff was at work cleaning out this basement as defendant had directed; that there was then, and for some time before had been, to the knowledge of defendant, a hole in the floor of one of those stalls; that the basement was so dark that this hole could not been seen without artificial light; that the basement was wired and equipped for electric lights, but defendant did not tell plaintiff this, and the basement was so dark that the electric light fixtures could not be readily seen by one who did not know of their existence; that there was a socket for an electric lamp directly behind the stall in question, but no lamp in the socket at the time of the accident. Plaintiff testified that he found and turned on one light before the accident; that he placed his wheelbarrow, stepped into the stall in the floor of which was the hole, "and commenced shoveling, and the first I knew I went down through the floor, through the hole," whereby he sustained the injuries of which he complained.
Argued before ROWELL, C. J., and MUNSON, WATSON, HASELTON, and POWERS, JJ.
Davis & Davis, for plaintiff.
Bert E. Cole and E. R. Buck, for defendant.
This is case by a servant against his master for personal injuries sustained by reason of the insufficiency of the floor of a basement stable in which he was working.
The objection to the question put to Dr. Miner, asking whether the plaintiff complained of anything when he manipulated his injury that day, is not available, as no ground of objection was stated. The defendant objected to the plaintiff's showing the condition of the floor at the time of trial, unless he showed that it was then in the condition it was at the time of the accident. Thereupon the plaintiff said he would show that by the defendant himself, and then the witness was allowed to state the condition at the time of trial. Later the plaintiff examined the defendant on that subject, and it does not appear that the defendant made any claim that his testimony did not make good...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Charles C. Patterson's Adm'r v. Modern Woodmen of America
...as not to require statement. Jewell v. H. T. & W. R. R. Co., 85 Vt. 64, 81 A. 238; State v. Comstock, 86 Vt. 42, 83 A. 539; Paige v. McCarty, 86 Vt. 127, 83 A. 659. is probable and will be presumed that the exception was saved in aid of the exception to the refusal of its request to charge,......
-
Patterson's Adm'r v. Modern Woodmen of America
...to require statement. Jewell v. H. T. & W. R. R. Co., 85 Vt. 64, 81 Atl. 238; State v. Cornstock, 86 Vt. 42, 83 Atl. 539; Paige v. McCarty, 86 Vt. 127, 83 Atl. 659. It is probable and will be presumed that the exception was saved in aid of the exception to the refusal of its request to char......
-
State v. Pierce
...for they are mere general objections not specifying any ground therefor. State v. Comstock, 86 Vt. 42, 83 Atl. 539; Paige v. McCarthy, 86 Vt. 127, 83 Atl. 659. The court did say, however, that this line of evidence might be received subject to respondent's exceptions, and, lest this stateme......
- William Paige v. J. William McCarty