Reynolds v. Hanrahan
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort for iniuries sustained in a collision of the plaintiff’s carriage on a highway with a wagon of the defendant which was managed and controlled at the time by the defendant’s servant, through whose negligence it was alleged that the collision was caused.
Read the full summary
Tort for iniuries sustained in a collision of the plaintiff’s carriage on a highway with a wagon of the defendant which was managed and controlled at the time by the defendant’s servant, through whose negligence it was alleged that the collision was caused. Answer, a general denial, with an allegation that the plaintiff’s injuries, if any, were caused by the neglect of the defendant’s servant, in the absence and without the knowledge of the defendant, to drive seasonably to the right of the middle of the travelled part of the road, as provided in the Gen. Sts. c. 77. At the trial in the…
1Opinion of the CourtColt, J.
The first instruction asked for was given substantially as requested. The jury must have found, under all the instructions given, that the injury was caused by the negligence of the servant of the defendant, either in being upon the wrong side of the road at the time of the collision, or in neglecting to turn to the right on meeting the plaintiff; and that the plaintiff was in the exercise of ordinary care at the time, having due reference to his disability as a one-armed man. The verdict must stand, unless there is something in the point taken, that, as the negligence complained of consisted…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Ryalls v. Mechanics' MillsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1889
- Pittsley v. DavidMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1937
- Train v. Boston Disinfecting Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1887
- Perlstein v. American Express Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1901
- Williams v. HendricksSupreme Court of Alabama · 1897
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.