Bicknell v. Maine Central Railroad

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Bicknell v. Maine Central Railroad

80 A. 1131, 107 Me. 534, 1911 Me. LEXIS 31

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine·Decided April 13, 1911·Published

Opinion

Action on the case to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff while crossing an approach to a station of the defendant where she intended to take a train, and caused by the alleged [535]*535defective condition of the approach. Verdict for plaintiff for $883. Defendant moved for a new trial. The rescript says: The jury apparently overlooked the question of the plaintiff’s own want of care, and for that reason their verdict is so manifestly erroneous that it should not be permitted to stand. Motion for a new trial sustained.”

McGillicuddy & Morey, for plaintiff. White & Carter, for defendant.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Action on the case to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff while crossing an approach to a station of the defendant where she intended to take a train, and caused by the alleged [535]*535defective condition of the approach. Verdict for plaintiff for $883. Defendant moved for a new trial. The rescript says: The jury apparently overlooked the question of the plaintiff’s own want of care, and for that reason their verdict is so manifestly erroneous that it should not be permitted to stand. Motion for a new trial sustained.”

McGillicuddy & Morey, for plaintiff. White & Carter, for defendant.

Bicknell v. Maine Central Railroad, 80 A. 1131, 107 Me. 534, 1911 Me. LEXIS 31 (Me. 1911).

Pincite

80 A. 1131 (Bicknell v. Maine Central Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.