Drennan v. Grady
This text of 45 N.E. 741 (Drennan v. Grady) 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
• There was evidence for the jury that the plaintiff was more than a mere licensee. There was evidence that the water-closet and urinal were provided for the use of the customers of the defendant, and that the plaintiff was a customer. On the evidence, the questions of the due care of the plaintiff and of the negligence of the defendant were rightly left to the jury. Hendricken v. Meadows, 154 Mass. 599.
Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
45 N.E. 741, 167 Mass. 415, 1897 Mass. LEXIS 356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/drennan-v-grady-mass-1897.