Jones v. New American File Co.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Jones v. New American File Co.

42 A. 509, 21 R.I. 125, 1898 R.I. LEXIS 39

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedDecember 30, 1898

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 42 A. 509 (Jones v. New American File Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jones v. New American File Co., 42 A. 509, 21 R.I. 125, 1898 R.I. LEXIS 39 (R.I. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

(1) The court is of opinion that the amended declaration sufficiently sets out the defect in the machine.

It also sets out that the plaintiff notified the defendant of the defect and received a promise that it should be repaired, relying on which he went on with his work. We cannot say, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff under these facts would be precluded from a recovery. It is a question of fact whether he can be regarded as excused from taking the risk of the employment after such a promise. This question would depend on whether the information was given simply to.a fellow-servant or to the proper agent of the company, whether the promise was by such agent, whether reasonable time had gone by without the repair having been made, thus showing that the plaintiff was not relying on the promise, and further, whether, after knowing the danger, his own care and precautions were proportionately increased.

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

Per Curiam.

(1) The court is of opinion that the amended declaration sufficiently sets out the defect in the machine.

It also sets out that the plaintiff notified the defendant of the defect and received a promise that it should be repaired, relying on which he went on with his work. We cannot say, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff under these facts would be precluded from a recovery. It is a question of fact whether he can be regarded as excused from taking the risk of the employment after such a promise. This question would depend on whether the information was given simply to.a fellow-servant or to the proper agent of the company, whether the promise was by such agent, whether reasonable time had gone by without the repair having been made, thus showing that the plaintiff was not relying on the promise, and further, whether, after knowing the danger, his own care and precautions were proportionately increased.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A. 509, 21 R.I. 125, 1898 R.I. LEXIS 39, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-new-american-file-co-ri-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack