Ince v. East Boston Ferry Co.

106 Mass. 149
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided November 15, 1870·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Guay, J.

The evidence introduced at the trial tended to show that the plaintiff and the other man in charge with him of his boat were well acquainted with the harbor, and knew the situation of the defendants’ docks or slips, and the usual track between them of the ferry boats, each of which ran every five or six minutes ; that the plaintiff’s boat, while crossing the usual track of the ferry boats about midway at right angles, was struck by one of the ferry boats and upset; that the plaintiff at the time did not think of the fact that he was in the usual track of the ferry boats; that his companion, who was at the helm and had the care of the main sail, had seen this ferry boat at the time of its leaving the slip, at least an eighth of a mile off; that from that time until the collision there was nothing to obstruct their view of this boat, and yet neither of them saw or looked towards it after it left the slip. No evidence was offered, which tended to control this. The unavoidable inference is, that the omission of the plaintiff and his companion, under the circumstances., to look in the direction in which they had reason to believe that a ferry boat might be, and knew that one actually was, approaching, was negligence which contributed to the accident; and therefore neither of them can maintain an action at law for the injury result-big therefrom, against the owners of the other boat, whatever may have been the negligence in its management.

•Tudament on the verdict.

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

Ince v. East Boston Ferry Co., 106 Mass. 149 (Mass. 1870).

106 Mass. 149 (Ince v. East Boston Ferry Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

New Orleans & N. E. R. v. Thomas
60 F. 379 (Fifth Circuit, 1894)
Barstow v. Old Colony Railroad
10 N.E. 255 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1887)
Crutchfield v. Richmond & Danville Rail-Road
78 N.C. 300 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1878)
Railroad Co. v. Jones
95 U.S. 439 (Supreme Court, 1877)
Haines v. Illinois Central R.
41 Iowa 227 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1875)