Kimball v. Cushman
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort for injuries alleged to have been caused to the plaintiff by the defendant through his servant Charles H. Flanders in legligently riding a horse against the plaintiff on a highway in Haverhill. The answer, among other grounds of defence, denied that Charles H. Flanders was the defendant’s servant or agent at the time of the accident.
Read the full summary
Tort for injuries alleged to have been caused to the plaintiff by the defendant through his servant Charles H. Flanders in legligently riding a horse against the plaintiff on a highway in Haverhill. The answer, among other grounds of defence, denied that Charles H. Flanders was the defendant’s servant or agent at the time of the accident. At the trial in the superior court, before Scudder, J., the plaintiff introduced evidence tending to show that, about five o’clock n the afternoon of April 8,1868, Charles H. Flanders was riding at an immoderate speed a horse (which it was admitted was one…
1Opinion of the CourtWells, J.
There was some evidence, competent to be submitted to the jury, and from which they might infer that, in the care and exercising of the horse, and in the main purpose for which he was out with the horse on the occasion in question, Charles H. Flanders was the servant of the defendant. It is not necessary that he should be shown to have been in the general employment of the defendant, nor that he should be under any special engagement of service to him, or entitled to receive compensation from him directly. It is enough that, at the time of the accident, he was in charge of the defendant’s…
2Cited by53 opinions
- Driscoll v. TowleMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1902
- Ritchie v. WallerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1893
- Wyllie v. . PalmerNew York Court of Appeals · 1893
- Brown v. KellySupreme Court of Georgia · 1890
- Linnehan v. RollinsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1884
48 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.