Slattery v. O'Connell
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort, by the administrator of the estate of Robert Healy, to recover for personal injuries sustained by the intestate. At the trial in the Superior Court, Barker, J., ruled that there was no evidence of due care on the part of the intestate to go to the jury, and, after a verdict for the defendant, the plaintiff alleged exceptions, which appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The subjoined opinion was prepared by Mr. Justice Deyens, and was adopted after his death as the opinion of the court.
The plaintiff’s intestate was a child of tender years, and the question presented is whether its parents, or those having custody of it, were in the exercise of due care. If there was a want of due care on their part, it is to be»imputed to the child, and will prevent a recovery. There was evidence tending to show the following facts. The intestate was a boy between four and a half and five years old, named Robert Healy. Two days before the accident his mother,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Walters v. C., R. I. & P. R.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1875
- Hoppe v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1884
- Gibbons v. WilliamsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1883
- Marsland v. MurrayMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888
3Cited by12 opinions
- Birkner v. Salt Lake CountyUtah Supreme Court · 1989
- Sullivan v. ChadwickMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1920
- West Chicago Street Railroad v. LidermanIllinois Supreme Court · 1900
- O'Connor v. Benson Coal Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1938
- Sullivan v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1906
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.