Monahan v. City of Worcester
This text of 23 N.E. 228 (Monahan v. City of Worcester) 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.
Opinion
The offer of the plaintiff to show that McLoughlin “ xvas generally reputed to be infirm in the senses of sight and hearing and in physical strength,” was made for the purpose of proving that the defendant either knew of these infirmities, or by the exercise of reasonable care would have known of them, if the jury found from other evidence that McLoughlin was infirm in these respects. For this purpose, in our opinion, the evidence was competent. The master is bound to use reasonable care in selecting his servants, and if a person is incompetent for the work he is employed to do, the fact that he is generally reputed in the community to want those qualities which are necessary for the proper performance of the work certainly has some tendency to show that the master would have found out that the servant xvas incompetent, if proper means had been taken to ascertain the qualifications of the servant. We cannot say that it may not be a matter of common repute in a community that a man is physically weak, and is partially blind and deaf. Gilman v. Eastern Railroad, 13 Allen, 433.
Exceptions sustained.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
23 N.E. 228, 150 Mass. 439, 1890 Mass. LEXIS 296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/monahan-v-city-of-worcester-mass-1890.