Morgan v. Aroostook Valley Railroad
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Action on the case for the alleged negligence of defendant. Defendant pleaded general issue and brief statement, alleging that the plaintiff was not in the exercise of due care at the time when the injuries complained of were received. Verdict for plaintiff in sum of sixty-five hundred dollars. Defendant filed motion for new trial. Case stated in opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtSavage, C. J.
The plaintiff, a child less than two years old, was run over and seriously injured by an electric motor engine on the defendant’s road, and brings this action to recover damages, on' the ground of alleged negligence. The verdict was for the plaintiff, and the case comes before this court on the defendant’s motion for a new trial. The only grounds of non-liability argued are that the defendant’s servants operating the motor were not negligent, and that the negligence of the child’s parents should be imputed to her as contributory negligence.
1. The defendant’s negligence. The evidence shows…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Campbell v. . LaundrySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
- Campbell v. Model Steam LaundrySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
- Caleb Lash v. Richard CuttsCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1991
- Wright v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1946
- Gravel v. LeBlancSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1932
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.