McGonigle v. O'Neill

133 N.E. 918, 240 Mass. 262, 1922 Mass. LEXIS 757
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedFebruary 17, 1922
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 133 N.E. 918 (McGonigle v. O'Neill) 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
McGonigle v. O'Neill, 133 N.E. 918, 240 Mass. 262, 1922 Mass. LEXIS 757 (Mass. 1922).

Opinion

By the Court.

This is an action of tort at common law to recover compensation for personal injuries received in 1918 by the plaintiff while employed in the usual course of their business by the defendants, who were not insured under the workmen’s compensation act. It is no defence that the plaintiff was negligent or had assumed the risk of injury. St. 1911, c. 751, Part I, § 1, G. L. c. 152, § 66. The only question is whether there was any evidence of negligence of the defendants having a causal connection with the injury to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was hurt by the breaking of a stepladder furnished him for use by the defendants. There was evidence tending to show that the stepladder was more than twenty years old and had dry blue or black rot at or near the break, and that this defective condition might have been discovered by adequate inspection by the employers. It was their duty to exercise reasonable care to provide for the plaintiff appliances suitable for his work, and the continuing duty of inspection and repair was personal to the defendants and could not be delegated. Without reciting the testimony in detail, it is enough to say that the case was rightly submitted to the jury. Carroll v. Metropolitan Coal Co. 189 Mass. 159. Ryan v. Fall [264]*264River Iron Works Co. 200 Mass. 188,192. Hix v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad, 230 Mass. 309, 311. There is nothing in Ashton v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 222 Mass. 65, which aids the defendants. The case is quite distinguishable from Allen v. Smith Iron Co. 160 Mass. 557.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

Gauld v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance
110 N.E.2d 318 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1953)
Reidy v. Crompton & Knowles Loom Works
60 N.E.2d 589 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1945)
Opinion of the Justices to the Senate & the House of Representatives
309 Mass. 571 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1941)
Mucha v. Northeastern Crushed Stone Co.
30 N.E.2d 870 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1940)
Callahan v. Chelsea Building Wrecking Co.
4 Mass. App. Div. 227 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1939)
Greem v. Cohen
11 N.E.2d 492 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1937)
Cronan v. Armitage
285 Mass. 520 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1934)
Walsh v. Boston & Maine Railroad
187 N.E. 554 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1933)
McPhail v. Boston & Maine Railroad
181 N.E. 739 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1932)
Armburg v. Boston & Maine Railroad
177 N.E. 665 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1931)
Hutchinson v. Sovrensky
165 N.E. 698 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1929)
Ray v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
154 N.E. 853 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1927)
DeMarco v. Pease
149 N.E. 208 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1925)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
133 N.E. 918, 240 Mass. 262, 1922 Mass. LEXIS 757, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgonigle-v-oneill-mass-1922.