Smith v. Paul Boyton Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tobt, for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff while participating in a sport at the amusement ground of the defendant. Writ dated September 1,1897. Answer, a general denial. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Sherman, J., the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; and the defendant alleged exceptions. The material facts appear in the opinion and in a note by the reporter.
1Opinion of the CourtBarker, J.
The plaintiff visited an enclosure known as an “ amusement ground,” to which the payment of a fee gave her admission, an additional sum being payable for each sport in *219which she there engaged. She was in the exercise of due care, and the cause of her injury was the negligence of the attendants in charge of a sport in which she was participating when hurt. The contention of the defendant corporation was that it was not in charge or control of the appliance and had nothing to do with its operation.
The defendant’s name was painted over the entrance to the grounds. Aside from the evidence of this…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Dennie v. WilliamsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1883
3Cited by9 opinions
- Brackett v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1916
- Bilodeau v. Fitchburg & Leominster Street Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1920
- Robinson v. DoeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1916
- Heywood v. OgasapianMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1916
- Bagley v. Wonderland Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1910
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.