Bowler v. O'Connell
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort, for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff by being kicked by a colt belonging to the defendants. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Mason, C. J., the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; and the defendants alleged exceptions. The material facts appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.
In .determining the legal question which is presented, we must assume that the jury adopted the plaintiff’s view as to the circumstances attending the accident, and the testimony in contradiction thereof may be disregarded. With reference to this aspect of the case, the defendants asked an instruction to the jury that they were not responsible for the acts of Frank O’Connell, who was thirteen years of age and the son of one of the defendants, in his invitation to the plaintiff to take a ride upon the colt. The jury, however, were instructed that, if Frank O’Connell was the servant of the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Morier v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
- Snyder v. Han. & St. Jos. R. R.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1875
- Hawks v. Inhabitants of CharlemontMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
- Levi v. BrooksMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1877
- Davis v. HoughtellinNebraska Supreme Court · 1891
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by43 opinions
- Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Co. v. CurrieTexas Supreme Court · 1906
- Sweeden v. Atkinson Improvement Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1910
- Fanciullo v. B. G. & S. Theatre Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1937
- Jones v. HogeWashington Supreme Court · 1907
- McCarthy v. TimminsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1901
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.