Bicknell v. Maine Central Railroad

80 A. 1131, 107 Me. 534, 1911 Me. LEXIS 31
CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine
DecidedApril 13, 1911
StatusPublished

This text of 80 A. 1131 (Bicknell v. Maine Central Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

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

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
80 A. 1131, 107 Me. 534, 1911 Me. LEXIS 31, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bicknell-v-maine-central-railroad-me-1911.