Higgins v. City of Boston

20 N.E. 105, 148 Mass. 484, 1889 Mass. LEXIS 301
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedFebruary 27, 1889
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 20 N.E. 105 (Higgins v. City of Boston) 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.

Bluebook
Higgins v. City of Boston, 20 N.E. 105, 148 Mass. 484, 1889 Mass. LEXIS 301 (Mass. 1889).

Opinion

C. Allen, J.

This case falls fully within several decisions of this court. The horse had got out of the control of the driver when off from the highway, and at a distance of about one hundred and sixty-six feet from the place of the alleged defect, namely, the want of a railing or fence; and when the highway was reached, the driver had not regained control sufficiently to enable him safely to turn and drive along it, and therefore he drove directly across, and upon the adjoining land. The city was not bound so to construct the avenue that a runaway horse could come upon it, and cross it at right angles, and leave it with safety. ' Even if a railing would have been useful to the plaintiff, (which is doubtful,) the want of it was not the sole cause of his injury. The uncontrollable condition of the horse contributed directly to it, and that condition arose outside of the limits of the highway, and at such a distance from the place of the alleged defect that the city is not responsible. Adams v. Natick, 13 Allen, 429. Fogg v. Nahant, 98 Mass. 578, and 106 Mass. 278. Richards v. Enfield, 13 Gray, 344. Titus v. Northbridge, 97 Mass. 258.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

Cobb v. Cumberland County Power & Light Co.
104 A. 844 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1918)
McCarthy v. Inhabitants of Leeds
101 A. 448 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1917)
Knight v. Savannah Electric Co.
93 S.E. 17 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1917)
Dudley v. Northampton Street Railway Co.
89 N.E. 25 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1909)
Doherty v. Inhabitants of Ayer
83 N.E. 677 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1908)
City of Vincennes v. Spees
74 N.E. 277 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1905)
Ehleiter v. City of Milwaukee
98 N.W. 934 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1904)
Overhouser v. American Cereal Co.
92 N.W. 74 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1902)
Schillinger v. Town of Verona
71 N.W. 888 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1897)
City of Denver v. Johnson
8 Colo. App. 384 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1896)
Scannal v. City of Cambridge
39 N.E. 790 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1895)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
20 N.E. 105, 148 Mass. 484, 1889 Mass. LEXIS 301, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/higgins-v-city-of-boston-mass-1889.