Legal Opinion

Newman v. Hill

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided January 20, 1925PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court.

This is an action of tort by the plaintiff, a pedestrian on a public way, to recover compensation *579for personal injuries caused-by being struck by an automobile. It is not argued that the operator of the automobile could not have been found to be the servant of the defendant, acting within the scope of his employment. The only point argued by the defendant is that the plaintiff was, on the aspect of the evidence most favorable to her, as matter of law, guilty of contributory negligence and hence cannot recover. There was evidence tending to show that the plaintiff at about seven…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Loanes v. GastMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1913
  2. Kaminski v. FournierMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1920
  3. Dube v. Keogh Storage Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1920
  4. Reynolds v. MurphyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1922
  5. Scannell v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1900

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Hutchinson v. H. E. Shaw Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1930
  2. Joughin v. Federal Motor Transportation Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1932
  3. Colburn v. FrostSupreme Court of Vermont · 1939
  4. Faircloth v. Framingham Waste Material Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934
  5. Vrusho v. VrushoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1927

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API