Snow v. Inhabitants of Provincetown
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tobt for an injury occasioned by a defect in a highway in defendant town. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Pitman, J., the evidence tended to show that the injury was received on High Street, a short street running at right angles with Commercial Street, and therefrom in a northwesterly direction; that the town was bound to keep the way in repair; that the alleged defect was the absence of a railing on the northerly side of the street, at a point about fifty-five…
Read the full summary
Tobt for an injury occasioned by a defect in a highway in defendant town. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Pitman, J., the evidence tended to show that the injury was received on High Street, a short street running at right angles with Commercial Street, and therefrom in a northwesterly direction; that the town was bound to keep the way in repair; that the alleged defect was the absence of a railing on the northerly side of the street, at a point about fifty-five feet from Commercial Street, at which point there was a bulkhead or embankment just outside of the limits of the street,…
1Opinion of the CourtColt, J.
Under the instructions given in this case, the jury must have found that there was a defect in the highway, which was the sole and immediate cause of the plaintiff’s injury; that *587this defect was occasioned by the want of a suitable railing at the place where the accident happened; that the plaintiff, although she knew of the defect, and although she attempted to pass while the street at that point was obstructed in part by a horse and Cart standing across it, was nevertheless in the exercise of due care; and finally, that neither the negligence nor the wilful act of the driver of the cart, or…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- French v. Taunton Branch RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875
- Mahoney v. Metropolitan RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
- Weare v. Inhabitants of FitchburgMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1872
- Dowd v. Inhabitants of ChicopeeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
- Barton v. City of SpringfieldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1872
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Buesching v. St. Louis Gaslight Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1880
- Loewer v. City of SedaliaSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Hainlin v. BudgeSupreme Court of Florida · 1908
- Urquhart v. Smith & Anthony Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1906
- Hassenyer v. Michigan Central RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1882
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.