Legal Opinion
Smith v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided March 4, 1929PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCrosby, J.
These are actions of tort; the first to recover for personal injuries, the second to recover for personal injuries and for damage to an automobile. The declaration in the first case contained a single count and was in compliance with the statutory form 13, G. L. c. 231, § 147: it alleges that the plaintiff “was lawfully travelling in an automobile ... that while he was so travelling, he received and suffered bodily injuries in consequence of having been struck by one of the defendant’s cars; And the plaintiff says that his said injuries were caused by reason of the carelessness and negligence…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Pizer v. HuntMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1925
- Commonwealth v. PentzMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1924
- Bliss v. New York Central & Hudson River RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1894
- Hicks v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1895
- Toy v. MackintoshMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1916
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Guinan v. Famous Players-Lasky Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1929
- Swistak v. ParadisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934
- Neil v. Holyoke Street Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1952
- Henri Peladeau, Lte. v. Fred Gillespie Lumber Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933
- McTighe v. Union Freight RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1931
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.