Laporte v. Cook

38 A. 700, 20 R.I. 261, 1897 R.I. LEXIS 109
CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island
DecidedOctober 28, 1897
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 38 A. 700 (Laporte v. Cook) 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
Laporte v. Cook, 38 A. 700, 20 R.I. 261, 1897 R.I. LEXIS 109 (R.I. 1897).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The first count in the plaintiff’s declaration is bad in that the allegation, in effect, is that the negligence complained of was that of a fellow servant, for which the defendant, prima facie, is not liable. Di Marcho v. Iron Foundry, 18 R. I. 514. Said count is also bad in that it does not'state in what particular respect the defendant was negligent — that is to say, wherein the negligence consisted.

The second count is bad, for duplicity, in that it sets up several distinct and independent breaches of duty, viz.: (1) Neglect to furnish proper safeguards for the protection of the plaintiff; (2) neglect to give him suitable instructions ; and (3) neglect to provide proper pei’sons to take charge of the work. These allegations should each be made the subject of a separate count, if the plaintiff desires to rely thereon. See Steph. PL (Heard) 251; G-ould Pl. 3 ed. 219, § 99, 419, § 1.

The third count sufficiently states a cause of action. It is different from the count in the case of Di Marcho v. Iron Foundry, supra, which case is relied upon by defendant’s counsel in support of his demurrer, in that, there, the allegation was that the defendant corporation threw, or caused to be thrown, a box, &c., thus showing the doing of some positive act; while in the count now under consideration the defendant is charged with the neglect of a legal duty. See 1 Am. & Eng. Ency. L. 828.

The demurrer to the first and second counts is sustained, and the demurrer to the third count is overruled, and the case is remitted to the Common Pleas Division for further proceedings.

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

Related

Sutherland v. Buckeye Cotton Oil Co.
259 F. 909 (S.D. Mississippi, 1919)
Weatherford, M. W. & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Crutcher
141 S.W. 137 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1911)
Boireau v. Rhode Island Co.
169 F. 1015 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island, 1909)
Bird v. Utica Gold Mining Co.
84 P. 256 (California Court of Appeal, 1906)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
38 A. 700, 20 R.I. 261, 1897 R.I. LEXIS 109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laporte-v-cook-ri-1897.