Counsell v. Hall

14 N.E. 530, 145 Mass. 468, 1888 Mass. LEXIS 333
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided January 4, 1888·Published·Cited by 16 cases

Opinion

Holmes, J.

If machinery upon which a servant is employed has become dangerous, and the servant has complained of it, and has been promised that it shall be repaired, but is injured before the defect is remedied, and while he is reasonably expecting the promise to be performed, the promise is a circumstance to be considered by the jury in determining whether he has assumed the risk in the mean time, and whether he was using due care in working when he knew there was danger. But no case, we believe, has gone the length of deciding that the promise entitles the servant to recover as matter of law, which was the effect of the ruling asked. And if, as supposed in the request, the time for performance has gone by before the accident, [471]*471and, as must have been the fact, the servant knows that the repair has not been made, there is a very strong argument that the servant is no longer relying upon the promise, but has decided to take the risk. Exceptions overruled.

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

Counsell v. Hall, 14 N.E. 530, 145 Mass. 468, 1888 Mass. LEXIS 333 (Mass. 1888).

14 N.E. 530 (Counsell v. Hall) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wood v. Danas
230 Mass. 587 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1918)
Dailey v. Swift & Co.
84 A. 603 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1912)
Riverside & Dan River Cotton Mills, Inc. v. Carter
74 S.E. 183 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1912)
Griffin v. Joseph Ross Corp.
90 N.E. 926 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1910)
Shue v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.
65 S.E. 697 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1909)
Gunning System v. Lapointe
72 N.E. 393 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1904)
Daily v. Fiberloid Co.
71 N.E. 554 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1904)
Dunkerley v. Webendorfer Machine Co.
58 A. 94 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1904)
Rice v. . Eureka Paper Co.
66 N.E. 979 (New York Court of Appeals, 1903)
Silvia v. Wampanoag Mills
58 N.E. 590 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1900)
Mann v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.
83 N.W. 596 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1900)
Limberg v. Glenwood Lumber Co.
60 P. 176 (California Supreme Court, 1899)
Illinois Steel Co. v. Mann
40 L.R.A. 781 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1897)
Illinois Steel Co. v. Mann
67 Ill. App. 66 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1896)
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad v. Midgett
40 P. 995 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1895)