Connors v. Holden

26 N.E. 137, 152 Mass. 598, 1891 Mass. LEXIS 358
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided January 7, 1891·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Knowlton, J.

The only negligence alleged against the defendant in the plaintiff’s declaration is, that she put the plaintiff’s intestate to work in a dangerous place, knowing, or having good reason to know, that it was dangerous, and that she negligently omitted to inform him of the danger, of which he was ignorant.

The evidence utterly fails to support the allegations of the declaration. The place in which the work was done was safe and proper, and the only negligence of which there is any evidence was that of the fellow servants of the plaintiff’s intestate in their manner of doing the work in which they were all engaged. For this the defendant is not liable.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Connors v. Holden, 26 N.E. 137, 152 Mass. 598, 1891 Mass. LEXIS 358 (Mass. 1891).

26 N.E. 137 (Connors v. Holden) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Frost v. Thompson
219 Mass. 360 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1914)
Ridge v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
100 N.E. 667 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1913)
Richmond Locomotive Works v. Ford
27 S.E. 509 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1897)
Fitzgerald v. Boston & Albany Railroad
31 N.E. 7 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1892)