Hinckley v. Inhabitants of Barnstable
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort on the Gen. Sts. o. 44, § 22, for injuries occasioned to the plaintiff by a defect in a highway in the town of Barnstable which the defendants were bound to keep in repair.
Read the full summary
Tort on the Gen. Sts. o. 44, § 22, for injuries occasioned to the plaintiff by a defect in a highway in the town of Barnstable which the defendants were bound to keep in repair. At the trial in the superior court, before Brigham, C. J., the following facts appeared: “ At the point where the plaintiff was injured a drain ran under and across the highway, leading from a ditch on the south side to a ditch on the north side of the highway; and at the north end of the drain, and a very little to the west thereof, the plaintiff fell. Opposite the northerly end of the drain, and under the sidewalk…
1Opinion of the CourtChapman, C. J.
The cases of Raymond v. Lowell, 6 Cush. 524, 532, and Packard v. New Bedford, 9 Allen, 200, do not decide that such evidence as was offered and excluded was admissible as tending to prove that the way was safe and convenient for travellers at the place of the accident. The objection to such evidence is that it is not pertinent to this issue. The issue relates to the condition of the way at the place and the time of the accident. Accordingly it is held that evidence that accidents or difficulties had occurred at the same place, but at a different time, is inadmissible, because it raises a…
2Cited by15 opinions
- Dolan v. Boott Cotton MillsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1904
- Bemis v. TempleMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1894
- Konig v. Nevada-California-Oregon RailwayNevada Supreme Court · 1913
- Shepard v. CreamerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1894
- Marvin v. City of New BedfordMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1893
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.