Legal Opinion

Dolphin v. Worcester Consolidated Street Railway Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided October 18, 1905PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLoring, J.

[After the foregoing statement of the case.] 1. The judge was right in refusing to give the first and second rulings asked for. There was no evidence of negligence on the part of the corporation. The plaintiff’s argument here is that the injury would not have happened as he claimed it happened if the railing had been down. That may be conceded. But that is not the question. The question is whether it was negligence on the part of the corporation to have failed to adopt a rule requiring the railing on that side of the car which is on the outer side of the curve to be put down when one of…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Banks v. BramanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1905
  2. McKimble v. Boston & Maine RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1885
  3. McKimble v. Boston & Maine RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1886

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Massaletti v. FitzroyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917
  2. Slotofski v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1913
  3. Dimauro v. Linwood Street Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908
  4. Moran v. Milford & Uxbridge Street Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1906
  5. Nauss v. Boston & Maine RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907

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

Powered by the Exa API