Keenan v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co.

34 N.E. 366, 159 Mass. 379, 1893 Mass. LEXIS 160
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJune 21, 1893
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 34 N.E. 366 (Keenan v. Edison Electric Illuminating 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
Keenan v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co., 34 N.E. 366, 159 Mass. 379, 1893 Mass. LEXIS 160 (Mass. 1893).

Opinion

Holmes, J.

We assume for the purposes of this decision that by reason of St. 1885, c. 374, § 110, the defendant was using the elevator illegally, and that the plaintiff did not share equally in the breach of law. We also assume that there was evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant towards the plaintiff. But the negligence, if any, consisted only in the failure to provide an automatic guard to the shaft; so far as appears, the defendant was not responsible for the elevator car having been moved. This being so, whether it be said that the plaintiff took the risk, or that he was negligent, or that the defendant’s negligence was not the proximate cause of the injury, the result must be that the plaintiff cannot recover. For the plaintiff knew as well as the defendant that there was no guard to the shaft, and, we must presume, understood that, if the elevator car was not there when he pushed his coal car into the well, his car would tumble down the hole. In other words, he appreciated the danger so far as the defendant contributed to it. Although very possibly a guard would have prevented the injury, the plaintiff’s conduct was nearer to the event. He did not rely on any such preventive, but took the chances of the elevator car being where he left it.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

Kauffman v. MacHin Shirt Co.
140 P. 15 (California Supreme Court, 1914)
Amiot v. Foster
100 N.E. 1007 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1913)
Streeter v. Western Wheeled Scraper Co.
98 N.E. 541 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1912)
Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. Norgate
141 F. 247 (Eighth Circuit, 1905)
Hall v. West & Slade Mill Co.
81 P. 915 (Washington Supreme Court, 1905)
Humphreys v. Portsmouth Trust & Guarantee Co.
68 N.E. 836 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1903)
Martin v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
59 L.R.A. 698 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1902)
Young v. Miller
45 N.E. 628 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1897)
Ballou v. Collamore
35 N.E. 463 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1893)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
34 N.E. 366, 159 Mass. 379, 1893 Mass. LEXIS 160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keenan-v-edison-electric-illuminating-co-mass-1893.