TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ledbetter v. M. B. Foster Electric Co.

John H. Ledbetter v. M. B. Foster Electric Company, Inc.

Ledbetter v. M. B. Foster Elec. Co., 260 N.E.2d 174 (Mass. 1970)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 9, 1970
Citations
260 N.E.2d 174357 Mass. 780

Opinion of the Court

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

In this action of tort the plaintiff claims for personal injuries received in a flash fire caused by the malfunction of a grill in the Jordan Marsh Company store in Boston, stating that the defendant undertook to repair the grill and its wiring system and did so negligently. We do not discuss the issues of negligence and the defence raised under G. L. c. 152, §§15 and 18, for the matter can be disposed of on the defendant’s contention that the individuals who undertook the repairs were lent servants to Jordan Marsh Company. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff (Cannon v. Crowley, 318 Mass 373, 374), it could have been found that the individuals who did the electrical work were employees of the defendant and paid by it although they worked steadily at Jordan Marsh Company. The two individual electricians took orders directly from the defendant’s foreman but the foreman in turn took his orders directly from an electrician in the employ of Jordan Marsh Company. In this instance the employees did not continue liable to the direction and control of the defendant but were subject to that of Jordan Marsh Company to which they were lent. Galloway’s Case, 354 Mass. 427, 430 . See Coughlan v. Cambridge, 166 Mass. 268, 277 ; Langevin’s Case, 326 Mass. 43, 47 . The record makes it clear that the employees who accomplished the repairs were lent employees, and since there was no contradictory evidence a verdict should have been directed for the defendant.

Exceptions sustained.

Judgment for the defendant.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1974: 11984: 12013: 119742026peak 1974 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Afonso v. City of Boston587 F. Supp. 1342 (D. Mass. 1984)
  2. Fraco Products, Ltd. v. Bostonian Masonry Corp.995 N.E.2d 1125 (Mass. App. Ct. 2013)
  3. Sawtelle v. Mystic Valley Gas Co.306 N.E.2d 271 (Mass. App. Ct. 1974)

Most recent

  1. Fraco Products, Ltd. v. Bostonian Masonry Corp.995 N.E.2d 1125 (Mass. App. Ct. 2013)
  2. Afonso v. City of Boston587 F. Supp. 1342 (D. Mass. 1984)
  3. Sawtelle v. Mystic Valley Gas Co.306 N.E.2d 271 (Mass. App. Ct. 1974)

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 3

DepthCaseCited by
Coughlan v. City of Cambridge, 44 N.E. 218 (Mass. 1896) 81
Galloway's Case, 237 N.E.2d 663 (Mass. 1968) 15
Langevin's Case, 91 N.E.2d 920 (Mass. 1950) 11

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