From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Byrne v. Farnum

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. Essex
May 19, 1905
74 N.E. 1131 (Mass. 1905)

Opinion

March 14, 1905.

May 19, 1905.

Present: KNOWLTON, C.J., MORTON, LATHROP, BARKER, HAMMOND, JJ.

Negligence, Employer's liability. Dynamite.

Hooe v. Boston Northern Street Railway, 187 Mass. 67, affirmed.

J.P. Sweeney, for the plaintiff.

J.G. Walsh, for the defendant.


This is an action to recover for an injury suffered by the plaintiff's intestate from an explosion of dynamite while he was in the service of the defendant. The accident occurred on February 14, 1902, and was the same referred to in the three first cases which appear under the name Hooe v. Boston Northern Street Railway Co. 187 Mass. 67. The only question raised in the present case is whether there was evidence to warrant a verdict for the plaintiff. The facts reported are substantially the same as those in the former cases, and the entry therefore must be.

Judgment for the plaintiff.


Summaries of

Byrne v. Farnum

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. Essex
May 19, 1905
74 N.E. 1131 (Mass. 1905)
Case details for

Byrne v. Farnum

Case Details

Full title:AGNES C. BYRNE, administratrix, vs. LORING N. FARNUM

Court:Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. Essex

Date published: May 19, 1905

Citations

74 N.E. 1131 (Mass. 1905)
74 N.E. 1131

Citing Cases

McLellan v. Boston Maine Railroad

This is different from lending the plaintiff to a third person and placing him absolutely in the control of…

Cogliano v. Ferguson

The defendant himself was present frequently enough to be held responsible for the method of the conduct of…