Connors v. Holden

26 N.E. 137, 152 Mass. 598, 1891 Mass. LEXIS 358
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJanuary 7, 1891
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 26 N.E. 137 (Connors v. Holden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

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

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
26 N.E. 137, 152 Mass. 598, 1891 Mass. LEXIS 358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/connors-v-holden-mass-1891.