Craven v. Mayers
This text of 42 N.E. 1131 (Craven v. Mayers) 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.
Opinion
The plaintiff knew that horse cars would come along every few minutes and be pushed over the trench by individuals. It was not expected that his work should stop whenever a car passed, nor that the cars should stop passing there. The suggested negligence on the part of the defendants is that they did not station a watchman there to prevent volunteers from helping to push cars over the trench. It seems to us, however, that the injury to the plaintiff must be deemed to have resulted from a pure accident, and that the omission to guard against it was not negligence on the part of the defendants.
The evidence of what was usually done at other places and under different circumstances was rightly excluded. Bailey v. New Haven & Northampton Co. 107 Mass. 496. Hinckley v. Barnstable, 109 Mass. 126. Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
42 N.E. 1131, 165 Mass. 271, 1896 Mass. LEXIS 238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/craven-v-mayers-mass-1896.