Rosedoff v. Consol. Rendering Co.
| Decision Date | 04 June 1946 |
| Docket Number | No. 3587.,3587. |
| Citation | 47 A.2d 574 |
| Parties | ROSEDOFF v. CONSOLIDATED RENDERING CO. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Hillsborough County; Tobin, Judge.
Action by Ted Rosedoff against the Consolidated Rendering Company, doing business as the Manchester Rendering Company, to recover damages for personal injuries. At the close of plaintiff's evidence a nonsuit was ordered, and the plaintiff excepted.
Judgment for defendant.
John D. Warren and Albert Terrien, both of Nashua (Albert Terrien, of Nashua, orally), for plaintiff.
McLane, Davis & Carleton, of Manchester (Stanley M. Brown, of Manchester, orally), for defendant.
Although the defendant had accepted the provisions of the Employers' Liability and Workmen's Compensation Act (R.L. c. 216), the plaintiff elected to bring an action for damages against it. The case is therefore governed by common-law principles. Ib., § 4; Meersman v. Davison, 88 N.H. 93, 184 A. 608.
The plaintiff was in the defendant's employment three months when injured while driving cows from retaining pens through an open five-foot runway leading to a slaughterhouse. One side of the runway was the side of a building and the other was the sides and gates of the retaining pens. The accident occurred as the last cow in the line suddenly turned completely around in a corner of the runway and, in returning to the retaining pens, struck the plaintiff with its right horn under the ribs which were protected by a hard rubber apron.
For twenty years the plaintiff had lived and worked on a farm and assisted in the slaughter of livestock. He was familiar with the characteristics of cattle, ‘that didn't go where you want to drive them.’ Here, as in Quimby v. Shattuck, 88 N.H. 262, 263, 187 A. 479, 480, ‘he was fully aware of the general danger from the horns of all cattle.’ It must have been apparent to a man of the plaintiff's experience that a cow could turn around in the runway. The method of driving cattle and the attendant risk was as well known to the plaintiff as the defendant. The plaintiff's familiarity with the habits and characteristics of cattle was substantially complete. ‘In view of the plaintiff's long experience the defendant could scarcely be required to instruct him as to the performance of his duties or the dangers of his employment.’ LaFontaine v. St. John, 92 N.H. 319, 321, 30 A.2d 476, 479. Accordingly the plaintiff, upon whom the burden of non-assumption of the risk rested, has failed to show that he did not know and appreciate the danger incurred in driving the cattle. Fortier v. Concord Electric Co., 92 N.H. 492, 33 A.2d 801; Quimby v. Shattuck, supra; Fasekis v. J. J. Newbury Co., 93 N.H. 468, 44 A.2d 817.
Although not necessary for the decision in this case it may be noted in passing, as bearing on the fairness of the trial,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Basney v. Klema
...also such cases under our statute as Schonwald v. Tapp, 142 Conn. 719, 722, 118 A.2d 302, and, at common law, Rosedoff v. Consolidated Rendering Co., 94 N.H. 114, 47 A.2d 574; Gray v. Pflanz, 341 Ill.App. 527, 532, 94 N.E.2d 693; note, 66 A.L.R.2d 916, 957 § 6d (under statute), 969 § 9 (at ......
-
Buttrick v. Arthur Lessard & Sons, Inc.
...237 F.Supp. 427, 429. The doctrine of 'assumption of the risk' has been viewed with distaste by this Court (Rosedoff v. Consolidated Rendering Company, 94 N.H. 114, 116, 47 A.2d 574) and confined to common law actions of employee against employer. Butler v. King, 99 N.H. 150, 106 A.2d 385. ......
-
Daniel v. Childress, 8263
...male and inherently vicious; and the evidence does not show that she was. Factually the case is quite similar to Rosedoff v. Consolidated Rendering Co., 94 N.H. 114, 47 A.2d 574, in which it was held that the plaintiff assumed the risk of driving a cow (which turned on him) down the We do n......
- Lewellyn v. Follansbee.