Linch v. Sagamore Manufacturing Co.
Cases that cite this one
19 later published cases cite this decision.
- Chicago, B. & Q. R. v. Shalstrom (8th Cir. 1912)
- Milby & Dow Coal & Mining Co. v. Balla (Court Of Appeals Of Indian Territory 1907)
- Kinzel v. Atlanta, K. & N. Ry. Co. (6th Cir. 1905)
- Chicago Great Western Ry. Co. v. Crotty (8th Cir. 1905)
- Roccia v. Black Diamond Coal Min. Co. (9th Cir. 1903)
- Buehner Chair Co. v. Feulner (Ind. Ct. App. 1902)
- Pennsylvania Railroad v. Martin (Ind. Ct. App. 1930)
- Grebenstein v. Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. (Mass. 1910)
- Brown v. Lennane (Mich. 1908)
- Lodi v. Maloney (Mass. 1903)
- Epperson v. Postal Telegraph Cable Co. (Mo. 1900)
- Dougherty v. West Superior Iron & Steel Co. (Wis. 1894)
- Showalter v. Fairbanks, Morse & Co. (Wis. 1894)
- Anderson v. Clark (Mass. 1892)
- Lothrop v. Fitchburg Railroad (Mass. 1890)
- Myers v. Hudson Iron Co. (Mass. 1889)
- Indianapolis & St. Louis Railway Co v. Watson (Ind. 1888)
- Hatt v. Nay (Mass. 1887)
- Gilbert v. Guild (Mass. 1887)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
This case falls within the rule, that, where a servant, knowing and appreciating the danger, enters upon a perilous work, even though he does so unwillingly and by order of his superior officer, he must bear the risk. Russell v. Tillotson, 140 Mass. 201. Taylor v. Carew Manuf. Co. 140 Mass. 150. Leary v. Boston & Albany Railroad, 139 Mass. 580. The plaintiff knew the danger from letting on the steam when water was in the pipes. He had this in mind at the time, and that water might be in the pipe. He acted with reference to this knowledge, and let the steam on slowly, because he knew there was danger. He understood the situation. Nobody could have given him any information. The very thing happened which he had in mind, and feared. In such case, he must be held to take the risk. It is urged that he did not know that there was water in the pipe. But he knew that it was likely to be there, and acted with reference to this contingency.
Judgment on the verdict.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.