Smith v. American Woolen Co.

92 A. 334, 77 N.H. 391, 1914 N.H. LEXIS 174
Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided November 4, 1914·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Walker, J.

If, as it is alleged in the declaration, the defendant employed the plaintiff to work for it in a place where he was exposed to the danger of freezing his hands, and the defendant knew or had reason to know that on account of his being a non compos mentis he was liable to suffer serious injury from the inclemency of the weather while so employed, but nevertheless negligently exposed him to that hazard, while he exercised such care to protect himself as he was capable of exercising, and as a consequence he was injured by *392 having his hands frozen, his right to maintain an action for the damage he suffered would be clearly apparent. Boyce v. Johnson, 72 N. H. 41.

Demurrer overruled.

All concurred.

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

Smith v. American Woolen Co., 92 A. 334, 77 N.H. 391, 1914 N.H. LEXIS 174 (N.H. 1914).

92 A. 334 (Smith v. American Woolen Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Waterhouse
223 S.W.2d 654 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1949)
Dziedzie v. Newmarket Manufacturing Co.
129 A. 271 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1925)