Bodwell v. Nashua Manufacturing Co.
Cases that cite this one
7 later published cases cite this decision.
- Coughlin v. Arms Textile Co. (N.H. 1946)
- Jutras v. Amoskeag Manufacturing Co. (N.H. 1929)
- Sevigny v. J. Spaulding & Sons Co. (N.H. 1924)
- Jones v. Walker County Lumber Co. (Tex. App. 1913)
- Primley v. Elbe Lumber & Shingle Co. (Wash. 1909)
- Towler v. New Jersey Adamant Manufacturing Co. (N.J. 1909)
- St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad v. Mealman (Kan. 1908)
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
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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.