Legal Opinion

Van Steenbergen v. Barrett

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided May 25, 1934PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCrosby, J.

This is an action of tort to recover for personal injuries received by the plaintiff. The declaration alleged that while she was on Washington Street, in Boston, and in the exercise of due care, a wheel came off a motor truck and injured her owing to the negligence of the defendant, his servants and agents in the operation,, control and inspection of the truck. It was admitted at the trial that at the time of the accident the driver of the truck was in the employ of the defendant and engaged in his business. It is conceded by the defendant that the plaintiff was in the exercise of due care.

The…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Lonergan v. American Railway Express Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1924
  2. Coulombe v. Horne Coal Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1931
  3. Buckland v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1902
  4. Bolin v. Corliss Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1928
  5. Marshall v. Boston & Worcester Street Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Grismore v. Consolidated Products Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1942
  2. Commonwealth v. ChapinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1956
  3. Desmarais v. Standard Accident InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1954
  4. Reardon v. MarstonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1941
  5. Motor Terminal & Transportation Co. v. MillicanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1943

8 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