Coleman v. Lowell, Lawrence & Haverhill Street Railway Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Coleman v. Lowell, Lawrence & Haverhill Street Railway Co.

64 N.E. 402, 181 Mass. 591, 1902 Mass. LEXIS 933

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided June 18, 1902·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Barker, J.

The only contention now made in support of the bill of exceptions is that the plaintiff was not in the exercise of due care. He testified without objection that he judged the car to be a safe distance away. There was conflicting evidence as to the distance of the car from the team when the plaintiff attempted to cross the track, and also as to the speed of the car. In our opinion the question whether the plaintiff was in the exercise of due care was for the jury.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Barker, J.

The only contention now made in support of the bill of exceptions is that the plaintiff was not in the exercise of due care. He testified without objection that he judged the car to be a safe distance away. There was conflicting evidence as to the distance of the car from the team when the plaintiff attempted to cross the track, and also as to the speed of the car. In our opinion the question whether the plaintiff was in the exercise of due care was for the jury.

Exceptions overruled.

Coleman v. Lowell, Lawrence & Haverhill Street Railway Co., 64 N.E. 402, 181 Mass. 591, 1902 Mass. LEXIS 933 (Mass. 1902).

Pincite

64 N.E. 402 (Coleman v. Lowell, Lawrence & Haverhill Street Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related