Sullivan v. Lowell & Dracut Street Railway Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort, for the loss of the services and society of the plaintiffs wife, and for expense incurred by him in providing surgical attendance for her, occasioned by an injury alleged to have been received by her on April 30, 1891, while a passenger on one of the defendant’s cars, through the negligence of the defendant and its servants. Trial in the Superior Court, before Bishop, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows.
Read the full summary
Tort, for the loss of the services and society of the plaintiffs wife, and for expense incurred by him in providing surgical attendance for her, occasioned by an injury alleged to have been received by her on April 30, 1891, while a passenger on one of the defendant’s cars, through the negligence of the defendant and its servants. Trial in the Superior Court, before Bishop, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows. The plaintiff introduced evidence tending to show that his wife received severe injuries by the negligence of the defendant, its agents or servants, as set out…
1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, J.
The evidence objected' to, whether admissible or not, was confined to the question of damages by the express and repeated directions of the judge. It was not let in generally, as in Ellis v. Short, 21 Pick. 142, Crowell v. Porter, 106 Mass. 80, and Maguire v. Middlesex Railroad, 115 Mass. 239. In Brown v. Cummings, 7 Allen, 507, the evidence was let in generally, and naturally would affect the amount of damages found by the jury. See Anthony v. Travis, 148 Mass. 53, 59. Ordinarily, it must be assumed that the jury follow the instructions which they receive. Commonwealth v. Ham, 150 Mass. 122.…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Maguire v. Middlesex RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
- Miller v. CurtisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1893
- Anthony v. TravisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888
- Commonwealth v. HamMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1889
- Crowell v. PorterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
3Cited by7 opinions
- Ducharme v. Holyoke Street Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
- Stackpole v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907
- Geary v. StevensonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1897
- Colburn v. MarbleMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907
- Oak Island Hotel Co. v. Oak Island Grove Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1896
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.