Mack v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford Railroad
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort, for personal injuries. Trial in the Superior Court, before Blodgett, J., who ruled that the action could not be maintained because notice was not given as required by law, and directed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant; and the plaintiff alleged exceptions. The facts appear in the opinion. The case was argued at the bar in September, 1898, and after-wards was submitted on briefs to all the justices.
1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, J.
This is an action for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff while crossing the defendant’s road upon a highway in the State of Connecticut. The plaintiff’s case is that he fell and was hurt because the planks of the crossing were rotten; that the statutes of Connecticut made it the defendant’s duty to keep the planks in repair, and that they give him an action for injuries caused by the defendant’s failure to obey the law. Conn. Gen. Sts. §§ 2673, 3499. But by § 2673 the right to maintain the action against a corporation is made conditional upon giving written notice within a certain…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Amy v. WatertownSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Crocker v. City of HartfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1895
- Gardner v. City of New LondonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1893
- Veginan v. MorseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1893
- McCall v. Byram Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1827
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Finneran v. GrahamMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908
- Commonwealth v. WarnerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1899