James v. Interstate Consolidated Street Railway Co.
79 N.E. 264, 193 Mass. 264, 1906 Mass. LEXIS 1193
Opinion
As frequently happens in cases of this kind, the evidence as to many of the material points was very conflicting. We have carefully examined it, and are of opinion that the questions whether the plaintiff in the management of his team and in his efforts to ascertain whether a car was approaching used due care, and whether the defendant in the management and equipment of its car was negligent, were questions of fact and not of law. The case was properly submitted to the jury.
Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
James v. Interstate Consolidated Street Railway Co., 79 N.E. 264, 193 Mass. 264, 1906 Mass. LEXIS 1193 (Mass. 1906).
79 N.E. 264 (James v. Interstate Consolidated Street Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Hall v. Bay State Street Railway Co.
105 N.E. 434 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1914)
Donovan v. Connecticut Valley Street Railway Co.
99 N.E. 956 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1912)
Jeddrey v. Boston & Northern Street Railway Co.
84 N.E. 316 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1908)
Le Baron v. Old Colony Street Railway Co.
83 N.E. 674 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1908)