Craven v. Mayers

42 N.E. 1131, 165 Mass. 271, 1896 Mass. LEXIS 238
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided February 26, 1896·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Allen, J,

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

Craven v. Mayers, 42 N.E. 1131, 165 Mass. 271, 1896 Mass. LEXIS 238 (Mass. 1896).

42 N.E. 1131 (Craven v. Mayers) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kelly v. Eastern Steamship Lines, Inc.
179 N.E. 921 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1932)
Schmidt v. Union Electric Light & Power Co.
3 S.W.2d 384 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1928)
Indiana Union Traction Co. v. Long
96 N.E. 604 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1911)
Powers v. Wyman & Gordon Co.
85 N.E. 845 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1908)
Dolan v. Boott Cotton Mills
70 N.E. 1025 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1904)
McMahon v. McHale
54 N.E. 854 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1899)