Harvey v. Eastern Railroad Co.
116 Mass. 269, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 75
Opinion
The jury, if they were governed by the instruction of the court, have found that the plaintiff attempted to get upon the train after it had started and while it was in motion. Such an attempt, in the absence of evidence of any circumstance's tending to excuse it, conclusively showed, as matter of law, that the plaintiff was not in the exercise of due care.
Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Harvey v. Eastern Railroad Co., 116 Mass. 269, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 75 (Mass. 1874).
116 Mass. 269 (Harvey v. Eastern Railroad Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Friend v. Boston & Maine Railroad
13 Mass. App. Div. 48 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1948)
Gerber v. New York Central Railroad
192 N.E. 837 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1934)
Palen v. Wheelock
13 F.2d 34 (Eighth Circuit, 1926)
Eikenberry v. St. Louis Transit Co.
80 S.W. 360 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1904)
Bertram v. Peoples Railway Co.
55 S.W. 1040 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1900)
Walthers v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.
72 Ill. App. 354 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1897)
Merritt v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford Railroad
38 N.E. 447 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1894)
Water & Imp. Co. v. Gildersleeve
4 N.M. 171 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1888)
Warren ex rel. Washburn v. Southern Kansas Railway Co.
37 Kan. 408 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1887)
Brooks v. Boston & Maine Railroad
135 Mass. 21 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1883)
Jewell v. Chicago, St. Paul & Minneapolis Railway Co.
12 N.W. 83 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1882)
Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Murphy
46 Tex. 356 (Texas Supreme Court, 1876)