Linch v. Sagamore Manufacturing Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Linch v. Sagamore Manufacturing Co.

9 N.E. 728, 143 Mass. 206, 1887 Mass. LEXIS 262

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJanuary 5, 1887

StatusPublished

Cited by21 cases

This text of 9 N.E. 728 (Linch v. Sagamore 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

Linch v. Sagamore Manufacturing Co., 9 N.E. 728, 143 Mass. 206, 1887 Mass. LEXIS 262 (Mass. 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

C. Allen, J.

This case falls within the rule, that, where a servant, knowing and appreciating the danger, enters upon a perilous work, even though he does so unwillingly and by order of his superior officer, he must bear the risk. Russell v. Tillotson, 140 Mass. 201. Taylor v. Carew Manuf. Co. 140 Mass. 150. Leary v. Boston & Albany Railroad, 139 Mass. 580. The plaintiff knew the danger from letting on the steam when water was in the pipes. He had this in mind at the time, and that water might be in the pipe. He acted with reference to this knowledge, and let the steam on slowly, because he knew there was danger. He understood the situation. Nobody could have given him any information. The very thing happened which he had in mind, and feared. In such case, he must be held to take the risk. It is urged that he did not know that there was water in the pipe. But he knew that it was likely to be there, and acted with reference to this contingency.

Judgment on the verdict.

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

C. Allen, J.

This case falls within the rule, that, where a servant, knowing and appreciating the danger, enters upon a perilous work, even though he does so unwillingly and by order of his superior officer, he must bear the risk. Russell v. Tillotson, 140 Mass. 201. Taylor v. Carew Manuf. Co. 140 Mass. 150. Leary v. Boston & Albany Railroad, 139 Mass. 580. The plaintiff knew the danger from letting on the steam when water was in the pipes. He had this in mind at the time, and that water might be in the pipe. He acted with reference to this knowledge, and let the steam on slowly, because he knew there was danger. He understood the situation. Nobody could have given him any information. The very thing happened which he had in mind, and feared. In such case, he must be held to take the risk. It is urged that he did not know that there was water in the pipe. But he knew that it was likely to be there, and acted with reference to this contingency.

Judgment on the verdict.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 N.E. 728, 143 Mass. 206, 1887 Mass. LEXIS 262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/linch-v-sagamore-manufacturing-co-mass-1887.

Opinion

C. Allen, J.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack