Chalke v. Cape & Vineyard Electric Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Chalke v. Cape & Vineyard Electric Co.

277 N.E.2d 301, 360 Mass. 858, 1971 Mass. LEXIS 1028

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedDecember 2, 1971

StatusPublished

This text of 277 N.E.2d 301 (Chalke v. Cape & Vineyard Electric Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chalke v. Cape & Vineyard Electric Co., 277 N.E.2d 301, 360 Mass. 858, 1971 Mass. LEXIS 1028 (Mass. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

In this action of tort resulting from a burn sustained by the minor plaintiff who came in contact with a high voltage wire owned by the defendant, the minor plaintiff seeks damages for personal injuries and his father, the other plaintiff, seeks to recover consequential damages. The jury [859]*859returned a verdict in favor of the defendant. The plaintiffs excepted to the judge's failure to grant certain of their requests for instructions. It is unnecessary to recite the evidence. The three requests on which argument is particularly made dealt with the following: (1) the presumption and standard of due care relating to a boy of nine years; (2) whether the defendant’s failure to insulate high voltage wires constituted negligence; and (3) the failure to inspect as evidence of negligence. While the judge did not give the instructions in, the terms requested, a review of the bill indicates that he dealt with their subject matter adequately in the charge. There was no error. Squires v. Fraska, 301 Mass. 474, 476. Ball v. Forbes, 314 Mass. 200, 204. Industron Corp. v. Waltham Door & Window Co. Inc. 346 Mass. 18, 21-22. See Commonwealth v. Monahan, 349 Mass. 139, 170-171.

Robert W. MacDonald for the plaintiffs. Charles R. Desmarais for the defendant.

Exceptions overruled.

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

In this action of tort resulting from a burn sustained by the minor plaintiff who came in contact with a high voltage wire owned by the defendant, the minor plaintiff seeks damages for personal injuries and his father, the other plaintiff, seeks to recover consequential damages. The jury [859]*859returned a verdict in favor of the defendant. The plaintiffs excepted to the judge's failure to grant certain of their requests for instructions. It is unnecessary to recite the evidence. The three requests on which argument is particularly made dealt with the following: (1) the presumption and standard of due care relating to a boy of nine years; (2) whether the defendant’s failure to insulate high voltage wires constituted negligence; and (3) the failure to inspect as evidence of negligence. While the judge did not give the instructions in, the terms requested, a review of the bill indicates that he dealt with their subject matter adequately in the charge. There was no error. Squires v. Fraska, 301 Mass. 474, 476. Ball v. Forbes, 314 Mass. 200, 204. Industron Corp. v. Waltham Door & Window Co. Inc. 346 Mass. 18, 21-22. See Commonwealth v. Monahan, 349 Mass. 139, 170-171.

Robert W. MacDonald for the plaintiffs. Charles R. Desmarais for the defendant.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 N.E.2d 301, 360 Mass. 858, 1971 Mass. LEXIS 1028, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chalke-v-cape-vineyard-electric-co-mass-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack