¶1The plaintiff’s case was, that the defendant’s workman took the lamp into the shafting box where he had to mend the pipe, and that he knew that the box was soaked with oil. The judge was warranted in finding these to be the facts. If he did so, we cannot say that he was not warranted in finding that a plumber who knew his business would not set fire to the box unless he was careless. On the other hand, we cannot say that the plaintiff was not warranted in assuming that the condition of the box was obvious, and would be noticed by the workman, and that the workman was aware that oil is easily ignited by flame. Exceptions overruled.
156 Mass. 340
Perry v. Smith
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided May 9, 1892
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1892-05-09
<p>Master and Servant — Negligence.</p> <p>In an action for negligently setting fire to the plaintiff’s premises, there was evidence that a workman who was sent by the defendant, a plumber, to make repairs in the plaintiff’s shop, took a lamp into a shafting box to mend the pipe, knowing that the box was soaked with oil. Held, that the judge was warranted in finding that a plumber who knew his business would not set fire to the box unless he was careless, and that, on the other hand, the plaintiff was warranted in assuming that the condition of the box was obvious, and would be noticed by the workman, and that the workman was aware that oil is easily ignited by flame.</p>
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently June 1941
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1892-05-09
View the full empirical analysis of this case →