McDonald v. Lovell

82 N.E. 955, 196 Mass. 583, 1907 Mass. LEXIS 1149
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided December 10, 1907·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff was of full age and not lacking in intelligence. The ladder, though rough and homely, was sound, exactly what it appeared to be, and suitable for the purpose for which it Was used. The floor was an ordinary wooden floor. If the foot of the ladder was placed too far from the wall it would slip and the plaintiff knew it.

The ladder was there in use when the plaintiff entered the defendant’s service. That an employer owes the employee no duty to change such an appliance, and that the employee on entering the service impliedly agrees to assume such risk as there is in the use of it, is too plain for argument or the citation of authorities.

Exceptions overruled.

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

McDonald v. Lovell, 82 N.E. 955, 196 Mass. 583, 1907 Mass. LEXIS 1149 (Mass. 1907).

82 N.E. 955 (McDonald v. Lovell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lagonda Citizens National Bank v. Knowles
18 Ohio Law. Abs. 657 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1934)
Ferguson v. Middle States Coal & Coke Co.
89 S.E. 151 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1916)
Sivley v. Nixon Mining Drill Co.
128 Tenn. 675 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1913)
Miszoian v. Taft
206 Mass. 227 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1910)