Dunlap v. Barney Manufacturing Co.

18 N.E. 599, 148 Mass. 51, 1888 Mass. LEXIS 16
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedNovember 28, 1888
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 18 N.E. 599 (Dunlap v. Barney Manufacturing Co.) 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
Dunlap v. Barney Manufacturing Co., 18 N.E. 599, 148 Mass. 51, 1888 Mass. LEXIS 16 (Mass. 1888).

Opinion

Morton, C. J.

The plaintiff was injured while attempting to move some heavy steps from one part of the defendant’s premises to another. He and two other men, who were fellow servants with him in the employ of the defendant, undertook to lift the steps on to a low truck; they were too heavy to be handled by three men, and the plaintiff’s ground of action is that the defendant failed to furnish a proper number of men, or suitable tools and implements, to perform the work. But there is no evidence of any such negligence on the part of the defendant. There is no evidence put in by the plaintiff to show that there was not a sufficient number of men about the premises who could have been called to aid in the work, or that there were not proper tools and implements which might have been used if needed. The evidence for the defendant, which was uncontradicted, showed that there were nine or ten men who might have been called to assist, and all tools and implements necessary to move great weights. The case proved is, that, the defendant having ordered that the. steps should be moved, three [53]*53men who were fellow servants undertook to do it. If there was any danger in the work, it was obvious to the plaintiff and his fellow servants. If there was any negligence, it was the negligence of the plaintiff or of his fellow servants in not calling more men to assist, or in not making use of the tools and implements furnished by the defendant for such cases.

The court properly directed ^ verdict for the defendant. We may add, that the St. of 1887, c. 270, is not applicable, as the accident happened before it went into effect.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

Richter v. Union Lime Co.
140 N.W. 1126 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1913)
Forsman v. Seattle Electric Co.
109 P. 121 (Washington Supreme Court, 1910)
Floyd v. Colorado Fuel & Iron Co.
18 Colo. App. 153 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1902)
Lothrop v. Fitchburg Railroad
23 N.E. 227 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1890)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
18 N.E. 599, 148 Mass. 51, 1888 Mass. LEXIS 16, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunlap-v-barney-manufacturing-co-mass-1888.