Jebb v. Checker Taxi Co.

Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div.

Jebb v. Checker Taxi Co.

4 Mass. App. Div. 94

CourtMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division

DecidedFebruary 20, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 4 Mass. App. Div. 94 (Jebb v. Checker Taxi Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jebb v. Checker Taxi Co., 4 Mass. App. Div. 94 (Mass. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Carr, J.

The only evidence connecting the defendant with the. accident was the testimony of the plaintiff’s wife that after the accident she saw upon the taxicab which struck her the words, “Checker Cab” written on the door. This was not sufficient. Cochrane v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co., 281 Mass. 386, 390. Therefore, the defendant’s request “that there is no evidence that the defendant’s agent or servant was negligent” should have been given.

Einding for plaintiff vacated. New Trial Ordered.

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

Carr, J.

The only evidence connecting the defendant with the. accident was the testimony of the plaintiff’s wife that after the accident she saw upon the taxicab which struck her the words, “Checker Cab” written on the door. This was not sufficient. Cochrane v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co., 281 Mass. 386, 390. Therefore, the defendant’s request “that there is no evidence that the defendant’s agent or servant was negligent” should have been given.

Einding for plaintiff vacated. New Trial Ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Mass. App. Div. 94, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jebb-v-checker-taxi-co-massdistctapp-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack