Bodwell v. Nashua Manufacturing Co.
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Peaslee, J.
If there were any dangers which contributed to the plaintiff’s injury of which he was not fully informed, they were caused by the acts of his fellow-servants.
Nash v. Company, 62. N. H. 406.
The promise to repair was not shown to have any connection with the plaintiff’s continuation in the employment. “No case *391 . . . lias gone so far as to bold that where the servant does not complain on bis own account, and continues in bis employment with full knowledge of the risk, he can recover of the master, because the latter, when the defective condition was called to his attention by the servant, gave assurances, which did not induce the servant to remain, that the defect should be remedied.”
Lewis v. Railroad, 153 Mass. 73, 77 .
Exception overruled.
Young, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 9 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.