Murphy v. Deane
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort. The declaration was as follows: “And the plaintiffs say that the defendants are teamsters and common carriers, and as such were by their agents and servants engaged in unloading and delivering from a wagon a cask of oil across the sidewalk in Broad Street in Boston into the warehouse of Mixer & Whitman there situate; and the female plaintiff" was passing along eaid sidewalk at the same time, and in the exercise of due care attempted to pass over and across the skids…
Read the full summary
Tort. The declaration was as follows: “And the plaintiffs say that the defendants are teamsters and common carriers, and as such were by their agents and servants engaged in unloading and delivering from a wagon a cask of oil across the sidewalk in Broad Street in Boston into the warehouse of Mixer & Whitman there situate; and the female plaintiff" was passing along eaid sidewalk at the same time, and in the exercise of due care attempted to pass over and across the skids then and there placed by the defendants’ agents and servants from the wagon across the sidewalk into the warehouse, and…
1Opinion of the CourtWells, J.
The instructions given to the jury, in regard to the conditions upon which liability of the defendants must depend, were correct, and sufficient for the case that was presented by the facts, and were carefully expressed and guarded. We dc not understand that any objection is made to what they contain. The plaintiffs contend that they are not equivalent to the instructions prayed for; and that they are entitled to a new trial on account of that deficiency.
We are of opinion that whatever is contained in the instructions prayed for, beyond what is in those given, or inconsistent therewith, is…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Johnson v. . the Hudson River Railroad CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
- Birge v. GardinerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1849
- Robinson v. ConeSupreme Court of Vermont · 1850
- Beers v. Housatonuc Rail-roadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1849
- Trow v. Vermont Central RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1852
3Cited by35 opinions
- Washington v. B. & O. R. R.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1880
- Black v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford Railroad Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907
- Nehring v. Connecticut Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1912
- Clements v. Louisiana Electric Light Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1892
- Holmes v. South Pacific Coast RailwayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.