Blanchette v. Border City Manufacturing Co.

8 N.E. 430, 143 Mass. 21, 1886 Mass. LEXIS 7
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided October 29, 1886·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

By the Court.

The only evidence in the case is, that the plaintiff’s intestate, while engaged in the employ of the defendant in making starch, was injured by some of the starch being blown out of the boiler upon him. There is no evidence that the boilers were improperly constructed, or were out of repair.

For aught that appears, the accident may have happened by reason of the carelessness of the plaintiff’s intestate in letting steam into the boilers, or in opening the covers of the boilers. The evidence does not sustain the burden which is on the plaintiff, to prove either due care on the part of her intestate, or negligence on the part of the defendant.

Judgment on the verdict.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Blanchette v. Border City Manufacturing Co., 8 N.E. 430, 143 Mass. 21, 1886 Mass. LEXIS 7 (Mass. 1886).

8 N.E. 430 (Blanchette v. Border City Manufacturing Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Droney v. Doherty
71 N.E. 547 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1904)
Highland Box Gold Min. Co. v. Pouch
124 F. 148 (Eighth Circuit, 1903)
Westland v. Gold Coin Mines Co.
101 F. 59 (Eighth Circuit, 1900)