Hirst v. Fitchburg & Leominister Street Railway Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort for an assault upon the plaintiff by one Driesnaek, alleged to have been employed by the defendant and acting within the scope of his employment. Writ in the Superior Court for the county of Worcester dated August 4, 1906. There was a trial before Wait, J., who refused to direct a verdict for the defendant, and the defendant excepted. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMorton, J.
The sole question in this case is whether there was evidence warranting the jury in finding that Driesnaek was *354acting as, the servant of the defendant when he assaulted the plaintiff. Driesnack was a police officer of the town of Lunenburg and was on duty at Whalom Park in said town. The defendant operated a skating rink at said Park. The alleged assault took place in the skating rink. Driesnack, who was called as a witness by the plaintiff, testified, amongst other things, that he was taking tickets at the main entrance and saw something that looked like a disturbance in the skating rink', “…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Dickson v. WaldronIndiana Supreme Court · 1893
- Healey v. LothropMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1898
- Railway Co. v. HackettSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1894
3Cited by11 opinions
- Cowan v. EASTERN RACING ASSOCIATION, INC.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1953
- Seelig v. Harvard Cooperative SocietyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1969
- Rand v. Butte Electric Railway Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1910
- Neallus v. Hutchinson Amusement Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1927
- Massachusetts Cotton Mills v. HawkinsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1927
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.