TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Kleinest v. Kunhardt

Herman Kleinest v. George E. Kunhardt & another

Kleinest v. Kunhardt, 35 N.E. 458 (Mass. 1893)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 29, 1893
Judges
Knowlton
Citations
35 N.E. 458160 Mass. 2301893 Mass. LEXIS 57
Headnotes
Personal Injuries — Master and Servant — Negligence — Assumption of Risk — Action. A person who, in falling on the floor of a mill in which he is employed, which is wet and slippery with soap and water from washing machines, is injured by catching his hand in a pulley on one of the machines, which is exposed near a place where workmen are expected frequently to pass, if the condition of the floor and pulley at the time when he entered the employment were the same as at the time of the accident, impliedly assumes the risk of an accident arising from such condition, and cannot maintain an action against his employer for the injury.
Summary
Tout, for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff while in the defendants’ employ, by the alleged negligence of the defendants. Trial in the Superior Court, before Sherman, J., who, upon the plaintiff’s evidence, at the request of the defendants, ruled that the action could not be maintained; directed a verdict for the defendants; and, at the plaintiff’s request, reported the case for the determination of this court. If the ruling was correct, the verdict was to stand; otherwise, a new trial was to be granted. The material facts appear in the opinion.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Knowlton

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Knowlton, J.

The plaintiff fell, and in falling caught one of his hands in a pulley on a washing machine in the defendants’ mill, and was injured. The floor was wet and slippery with soap and water from the washing machines, and the defendants are alleged to have been negligent in allowing the floor to be in that condition, and the pulley to be exposed near a place where workmen were expected frequently to pass.

The plaintiff testified that the floor was always wet, and it appears that the condition of the floor and the pulley at the time when he entered the defendants’ service were the same as at the time of the accident. This condition was open and obvious, and it must be held that the plaintiff impliedly contracted, not only to work in this place, but also to assume the risk of accidents arising from the wet floor and the exposed pulley. O'Maley v. South Boston Gras Light Co. 158 Mass. 135 . Fisk v. Fitchburg Railroad, 158 Mass. 238 . The defendants were under no obligation to the plaintiff to change the condition of their works in these particulars.

Judgment on the verdict.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 12 cases

View all citing references →
1894: 11895: 11896: 11901: 21903: 21907: 11909: 11910: 11911: 11915: 118942026peak 1901 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. St. Louis Cordage Co. v. Miller126 F. 495 (8th Cir. 1903)
  2. Rase v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.120 N.W. 360 (Minn. 1909)
  3. Standard Knitting Mills v. Hickman133 Tenn. 43 (1915)
  4. Cudahy Packing Co. v. Marcan106 F. 645 (8th Cir. 1901)
  5. McCafferty v. Lewando's French Dyeing & Cleansing Co.80 N.E. 460 (Mass. 1907)
  6. Goodes v. Boston & Albany Railroad38 N.E. 500 (Mass. 1894)

Most recent

  1. Standard Knitting Mills v. Hickman133 Tenn. 43 (1915)
  2. Mann v. Moore Spinning Co.94 N.E. 1101 (Mass. 1911)
  3. Saversnick v. Schwarzschild & Sulzberger Co.125 S.W. 1192 (Mo. Ct. App. 1910)
  4. Rase v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.120 N.W. 360 (Minn. 1909)
  5. McCafferty v. Lewando's French Dyeing & Cleansing Co.80 N.E. 460 (Mass. 1907)
  6. St. Louis Cordage Co. v. Miller126 F. 495 (8th Cir. 1903)

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.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
O'Maley v. South Boston Gas Light Co., 47 L.R.A. 161 (Mass. 1893) 79
Fisk v. Fitchburg R.R., 33 N.E. 510 (Mass. 1893) 17

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list