McDonald v. Inhabitants of Savoy
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Toet on the Gen. Sts. c. 44, § 22, to recover damages for injury to the plaintiff’s horse, caused by a defect in a highway, on which the plaintiff was travelling, and which the defendants were bound to keep in repair.
Read the full summary
Toet on the Gen. Sts. c. 44, § 22, to recover damages for injury to the plaintiff’s horse, caused by a defect in a highway, on which the plaintiff was travelling, and which the defendants were bound to keep in repair. Trial in the Superior Court, before Brigham, C. J., who, after a verdict for the defendants, allowed the following bill of exceptions : “ The plaintiff offered the testimony of witnesses that he was commonly careful and skilful in driving his team, as competent to show that when the accident occurred, he was exercising due and proper care. To this evidence objection was made and…
1Opinion of the CourtChapman, C. J.
The burden was on the plaintiff to prove that at the time of the accident he was using due care in the management of his horse. On this point he offered to prove “ that h« was commonly careful and skilful in driving his team,” but this *50evidence was rejected. A majority of the court are of opinion that this rejection was in accordance with the decision in Tenney v. Tuttle, 1 Allen, 185. In that case there had been a collision of carriages on the highway and the defendant offered to show his own character as a careful, prudent and cautious man, as bearing on the question whether he had used…
2Cited by18 opinions
- Commonwealth v. ChanceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1899
- Kenyon v. HathawayMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1931
- Towle v. Pacific Improvement Co.California Supreme Court · 1893
- Yazoo M.R. Co. v. PittmanMississippi Supreme Court · 1934
- Dolan v. O'RourkeNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1928
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.