Horrigan v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Horrigan v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.

77 N.E. 634, 190 Mass. 577, 1906 Mass. LEXIS 1130

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMarch 2, 1906

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 77 N.E. 634 (Horrigan v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.) 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

Horrigan v. Boston Elevated Railway Co., 77 N.E. 634, 190 Mass. 577, 1906 Mass. LEXIS 1130 (Mass. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Hammond, J.

There was no evidence of the negligence of the defendant. The plaintiff did not contend that the grating was a defect in the floor. It was there properly as a ventilator, and was not intended for any other purpose. It was removed without the defendant’s authority, by the plaintiff’s fellow employee, who carelessly neglected to replace it. The defendant as against the plaintiff was not bound to anticipate that it would be so used.

Judgment on the verdict.

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

Hammond, J.

There was no evidence of the negligence of the defendant. The plaintiff did not contend that the grating was a defect in the floor. It was there properly as a ventilator, and was not intended for any other purpose. It was removed without the defendant’s authority, by the plaintiff’s fellow employee, who carelessly neglected to replace it. The defendant as against the plaintiff was not bound to anticipate that it would be so used.

Judgment on the verdict.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 N.E. 634, 190 Mass. 577, 1906 Mass. LEXIS 1130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horrigan-v-boston-elevated-railway-co-mass-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack