Feely v. Pearson Cordage Co.

37 N.E. 368, 161 Mass. 426, 1894 Mass. LEXIS 212
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMay 18, 1894
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 37 N.E. 368 (Feely v. Pearson Cordage 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
Feely v. Pearson Cordage Co., 37 N.E. 368, 161 Mass. 426, 1894 Mass. LEXIS 212 (Mass. 1894).

Opinion

Morton, J.

For most of the time during the four or five weeks that the plaintiff had been working for the defendant he had known of the well. Sometimes the barrel from which he got the washers was nearer to, and sometimes farther from it. The defendant was under no obligation to the plaintiff to cover the well or keep the floor dry. Murphy v. American Rubber Co. 159 Mass. 266, and cases cited. The danger of slipping or of falling into the well was an obvious one, and the plaintiff must be held to have assumed the risk. It does not matter that he did not know the precise extent or character of the injury which he would sustain if he fell into the well. Such a test would introduce an impracticable element into the doctrine of assumption of the risk. It is enough that he knew that he might fall [428]*428into the well, and continued at his employment without objection. He must be held to have assumed the risk of whatever injury he might receive by falling into the well. It is not necessary to -consider whether the plaintiff was in the exercise of due care, or was acting within the scope of his employment.

Exceptions sustained.

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

Related

Evans v. DeCola
145 N.E.2d 422 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1956)
Sjostedt v. Webster
28 N.E.2d 239 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1940)
Houston's Adm'x v. Seaboard Air Line Railway
96 S.E. 270 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1918)
Fitzwater v. . Warren
99 N.E. 1042 (New York Court of Appeals, 1912)
Mann v. Moore Spinning Co.
94 N.E. 1101 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1911)
Rase v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.
120 N.W. 360 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1909)
Hollidge v. Duncan
85 N.E. 186 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1908)
Detroit Crude-Oil Co. v. Grable
94 F. 73 (Sixth Circuit, 1899)
Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Hudson
22 Ohio C.C. 586 (Ohio Circuit Courts, 1898)
Davis v. Forbes
47 L.R.A. 170 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1898)
O'Neil v. Keyes
47 N.E. 416 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1897)
Murch v. Thomas Wilson's Sons & Co.
47 N.E. 111 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1897)
O'Brien v. Staples Coal Co.
43 N.E. 181 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1896)
Goodes v. Boston & Albany Railroad
38 N.E. 500 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1894)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
37 N.E. 368, 161 Mass. 426, 1894 Mass. LEXIS 212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/feely-v-pearson-cordage-co-mass-1894.