Flagg v. Inhabitants of Hudson
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tout, for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff by reason of an alleged defect in a highway in the town of Hudson. Trial in the Superior Court, before Brigham, C. J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows: The injuries were received on April 27, 1883, at about half-past eight o’clock in the evening. Within thirty days thereafter a notice, as required by the statute, was given to the chairman of the selectmen of the defendant.
Read the full summary
Tout, for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff by reason of an alleged defect in a highway in the town of Hudson. Trial in the Superior Court, before Brigham, C. J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows: The injuries were received on April 27, 1883, at about half-past eight o’clock in the evening. Within thirty days thereafter a notice, as required by the statute, was given to the chairman of the selectmen of the defendant. The plaintiff and her husband lived about three fourths of a mile from the place of the injury, on a road running east and west, and leading…
1Opinion of the CourtField, J.
Whether the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s husband was in the exercise of due care was for the jury to determine.
The defendant contends that the evidence failed to show that the injury was caused solely by a defect in the way, and was insufficient to warrant a verdict for the plaintiff; that the real, cause of the injury was the collision; that the last two instructions requested should have been given ; and that the instructions given were not substantially the same in meaning as those requested.
We think there was evidence for the jury, that the injury was caused solely by the tipping of the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Harris v. Inhabitants of NewburyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880
- Bemis v. Inhabitants of ArlingtonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
- Sears v. Inhabitants of DennisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
- Williams v. Inhabitants of LeydenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
3Cited by16 opinions
- Hayes v. Inhabitants of Hyde ParkMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1891
- Edgecomb v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1941
- Mcfarlane v. Town of SullivanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1898
- Frauenthal v. Laclede Gaslight Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1896
- Pomeroy v. Inhabitants of WestfieldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1891
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.