Monahan v. City of Worcester

23 N.E. 228, 150 Mass. 439, 1890 Mass. LEXIS 296
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJanuary 2, 1890
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

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.

Bluebook
Monahan v. City of Worcester, 23 N.E. 228, 150 Mass. 439, 1890 Mass. LEXIS 296 (Mass. 1890).

Opinion

Field, J.

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

Leone v. Doran
292 N.E.2d 19 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1973)
Jordan v. McCourt
62 S.E.2d 555 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1950)
Alexander v. Ritchie
53 S.E.2d 735 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1949)
Sousa v. Irome
219 Mass. 273 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1914)
Huntt v. McNamee
141 F. 293 (Fourth Circuit, 1905)
Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Hays.
89 S.W. 29 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1905)
Southern Pac. Co. v. Hetzer
135 F. 272 (Eighth Circuit, 1905)
Palmer v. Coyle
72 N.E. 844 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1905)
McCarty v. Ritch
59 A.D. 145 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1901)
Olsen v. North Pacific Lumber Co.
100 F. 384 (Ninth Circuit, 1900)
Park v. . N.Y. Central H.R.R.R. Co.
49 N.E. 674 (New York Court of Appeals, 1898)
Park v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad
155 N.Y. 215 (New York Court of Appeals, 1898)
Ledwidge v. Hathaway
49 N.E. 656 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1898)
Baltimore & O. R. v. Camp
81 F. 807 (Sixth Circuit, 1897)
Marrinan v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad
13 A.D. 439 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1897)
Gier v. Los Angeles Consolidated Electric Railway Co.
41 P. 22 (California Supreme Court, 1895)
Driscoll v. City of Fall River
39 N.E. 1003 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1895)
Park v. New York Cent. & H. R. Railroad
32 N.Y.S. 482 (New York Supreme Court, 1895)
Malcolm v. Fuller
25 N.E. 83 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1890)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
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.