Donnelly v. Fitch
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort for personal injuries. Answer, a general denial. Trial in the Superior Court, before Barker, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows: The plaintiff was injured, while travelling on the highway between Ashland and Hopkinton, by the running of the horses of the defendant, caused, as the plaintiff contended, by the defendant’s negligent management of the same.
Read the full summary
Tort for personal injuries. Answer, a general denial. Trial in the Superior Court, before Barker, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows: The plaintiff was injured, while travelling on the highway between Ashland and Hopkinton, by the running of the horses of the defendant, caused, as the plaintiff contended, by the defendant’s negligent management of the same. The plaintiff offered evidence tending to show that, about a year and a half before the accident, one of the defendant’s horses had been frightened and had run away. The defendant offered two witnesses, who…
1Opinion of the CourtColburn, J.
The plaintiff having offered evidence tending to show that, about a year and a half before the injuries for which the action was brought, one of the horses which the defendant was driving at the time of the accident had been frightened and had run away, it was competent for the defendant to show that this fact would not affect the horse at the time of the accident.'
Whether a horse which had been frightened and had run away, and had not run again for a year and a half, was any more likely to run than if he had not run before, was not, we think, a matter of common knowledge, and not unlikely to…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Folsom v. Concord & Montreal RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1896