Wood v. Locke

18 N.E. 578, 147 Mass. 604, 1888 Mass. LEXIS 174
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedNovember 27, 1888
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 18 N.E. 578 (Wood v. Locke) 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
Wood v. Locke, 18 N.E. 578, 147 Mass. 604, 1888 Mass. LEXIS 174 (Mass. 1888).

Opinion

W. Allen, J.

The plaintiff knew the condition of the tracks and the danger attending their use, and voluntarily assumed the known risks of his employment upon them. Pingree v. Leyland, 135 Mass. 398. Moulton v. Gage, 138 Mass. 390. Leary v. Boston & Albany Railroad, 139 Mass. 580. Taylor v. Carew Manuf. Co. 140 Mass. 150. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway v. McCormick, 74 Ind. 440.

It does not make in the plaintiff’s favor that he was not in the employment of the defendant, but in that of the Troy and Boston Railroad Company, a corporation that was authorized to use the tracks. Whatever the obligations of the defendant may have been under the contract with that company, he was under [606]*606no greater obligation to its servants to furnish a suitable road for them to work upon, than he was under to his own servants. The plaintiff, in going to work upon the tracks at the invitation of the defendant contained in the contract with the Troy and Boston Railroad Company, assumed, as against the defendant, the obvious and known risks of the employment arising from the defective construction or condition of the road, as fully as if he had gone upon the tracks under a contract' with the defendant as his servant. A majority of the court are of opinion, for these reasons, that the entry must be,

Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

Hietala v. Boston & Albany Railroad
3 N.E.2d 377 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1936)
Scory v. LaFave
254 N.W. 643 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1934)
Adams' Administrator v. Callis & Hughes
69 S.W.2d 711 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1934)
Standard Oil Co. v. Titus
219 S.W. 1077 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1920)
Wagner v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
74 N.E. 919 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1905)
Ederle v. Vicksburg, S. & P. R.
36 So. 664 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1904)
St. Louis Cordage Co. v. Miller
126 F. 495 (Eighth Circuit, 1903)
Carver v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co.
94 N.W. 862 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1903)
Gillin v. Patten & Sherman Railroad
44 A. 361 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1899)
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. Thompson
33 S.W. 718 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1895)
Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Baxter
60 N.W. 1044 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1894)
Gleason v. New York & New England Railroad
34 N.E. 79 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1893)
Carey v. Boston & Maine Railroad
33 N.E. 512 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1893)
Fisk v. Fitchburg Railroad
33 N.E. 510 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1893)
Coombs v. Fitchburg Railroad
30 N.E. 1140 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1892)
Fitzgerald v. Connecticut River Paper Co.
29 N.E. 464 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1891)
Railway Co. v. Davis
15 S.W. 895 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1891)
Miner v. Connecticut River Railroad
26 N.E. 994 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1891)
Lothrop v. Fitchburg Railroad
23 N.E. 227 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1890)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
18 N.E. 578, 147 Mass. 604, 1888 Mass. LEXIS 174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wood-v-locke-mass-1888.