Lane v. Atlantic Works

107 Mass. 104
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMarch 15, 1871
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 107 Mass. 104 (Lane v. Atlantic Works) 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
Lane v. Atlantic Works, 107 Mass. 104 (Mass. 1871).

Opinion

Wells, J.

1. Whether the defendant was in fault in leaving the truck in the street, or in leaving it insecure, and whether the occurrence, by which the plaintiff received his injury, was one which might reasonably have been apprehended as the result of .Finch negligent conduct, and was in fact a result thereof, were questions for the jury; the burden of proof being on the plaintiff.

2.. If these points should be found in favor of the plaintiff, the fault of the older boy, Horace Lane, in moving the tongue of the truck, would not prevent recovery from the defendant, although it contributed to the result. It would be otherwise, of course, if the misconduct of Horace Lane should be found to be the sole, direct or culpable cause of the injury.

3. Whether the plaintiff participated in the wrongful conduct of Horace Lane was also clearly a question for the jury.

4. The remaining question, and that, as we suppose, upon which the verdict was ordered for the defendant, is, whether the plaintiff was shown to be in the exercise of due cáre on his part, in going to the place and standing so near the truck while Horace Lane was attempting to move it. Upon this point, we are of opinion that the evidence reported does not conclusively show negligence or fault on his part; and that the question whether he was in the exercise of proper and reasonable care should have been submitted to the jury upon all the circumstances of the case. Mayo v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 104 Mass. 137.

Verdict set aside.

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

Related

Hatch v. Globe Laundry Co.
171 A. 387 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1934)
Alabama Power Co. v. McIntosh
122 So. 677 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1929)
Dalton v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
135 N.E. 318 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1922)
Nicholas v. Folsom
110 A. 68 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1920)
Smith v. Peach
86 N.E. 908 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1909)
Hollidge v. Duncan
85 N.E. 186 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1908)
Butler v. New England Structural Co.
191 Mass. 397 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1906)
Bowden v. Derby
58 A. 993 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1904)
McGuiness v. Butler
34 N.E. 259 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1893)
Gay v. Essex Electric Street Railway Co.
34 N.E. 186 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1893)
Kerrigan v. West End Street Railway Co.
33 N.E. 523 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1893)
Flynn v. Erie Preserving Co.
12 N.Y. St. Rep. 88 (Superior Court of Buffalo, 1887)
Atkinson v. Goodrich Transportation Co.
18 N.W. 764 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1884)
State ex rel. Kearney v. Finn
11 Mo. App. 400 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1882)
Billman v. Indianapolis, Cincinnati & Lafayette Railroad
76 Ind. 166 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1881)
Linnehan v. Sampson
126 Mass. 506 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1879)
Weick v. Lander
75 Ill. 93 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1874)
Elkins v. Boston & Albany Railroad
115 Mass. 190 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1874)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
107 Mass. 104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lane-v-atlantic-works-mass-1871.