Love v. Worcester Consolidated Street Railway Co.
99 N.E. 960, 213 Mass. 137, 1912 Mass. LEXIS 685
Opinion
At the time of the accident the automobile was not registered in the name of its owner. It was therefore unlawfully upon the highway, and the defendant owed to the plaintiff no other duty than that of abstaining from injuring hita by wantonness or recklessness. The case is fully covered by Dudley v. Northampton Street Railway, 202 Mass. 443, and Chase v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad, 208 Mass. 137.
Judgment for the defendant.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Love v. Worcester Consolidated Street Railway Co., 99 N.E. 960, 213 Mass. 137, 1912 Mass. LEXIS 685 (Mass. 1912).
99 N.E. 960 (Love v. Worcester Consolidated Street Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Cochran v. M & M Transp. Co.
112 F.2d 241 (First Circuit, 1940)
Liacos v. Shaktman
2 Mass. App. Div. 567 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1937)
Potter v. Gilmore
184 N.E. 373 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1933)
City of La Junta v. Dudley
260 P. 96 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1927)
Meloon v. Davis
292 F. 82 (First Circuit, 1923)
Cobb v. Cumberland County Power & Light Co.
104 A. 844 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1918)
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Kelly
77 So. 972 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1918)
United Transportation Co. v. Hass
91 Misc. 311 (New York Supreme Court, 1915)
Dean v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
105 N.E. 616 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1914)
Holden v. McGillicuddy
215 Mass. 563 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1913)
Holland v. City of Boston
100 N.E. 1009 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1913)