Hooper v. Bacon
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On motion and exceptions by defendant. Action on the case to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff and caused by the alleged negligence of the defendant, who was driving an automobile. The writ originally contained two counts, but during the progress of the trial, the plaintiff, against the defendant’s objection, was. allowed to amend his writ by inserting a third count.
Read the full summary
On motion and exceptions by defendant. Action on the case to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff and caused by the alleged negligence of the defendant, who was driving an automobile. The writ originally contained two counts, but during the progress of the trial, the plaintiff, against the defendant’s objection, was. allowed to amend his writ by inserting a third count. The three counts are as follows : “For that the plaintiff on the seventh day of July A. D. 1904, was driving along a highway, to wit, a public Street, within the. compact and built up portion of the…
1Opinion of the CourtSavage, J.
Case for personal injuries. The only point relied upon by the defendant under his motion for a new trial is that the damages awarded are excessive. It is not seriously contended that they are excessive in view of all the consequences of the plaintiff’s *537original injuries. But it is claimed that for a part of the consequences the defendant is not responsible. In other words, the defendant says that the plaintiff’s injuries did not receive proper surgical treatment, and that by reason of the want of proper care or skill on the part of the surgeon employed by the plaintiff, his injuries were…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Polucha v. LandesNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1930
- Steeves v. IrwinSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1967
- Wright v. BlakesleeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1925
- Morro v. BrockettSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1929
- Keown v. YoungSupreme Court of Kansas · 1930
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.