Magee v. West End Street Railway Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Magee v. West End Street Railway Co.

23 N.E. 1102, 151 Mass. 240, 1890 Mass. LEXIS 190

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedFebruary 27, 1890

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 23 N.E. 1102 (Magee v. West End Street Railway Co.) 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

Magee v. West End Street Railway Co., 23 N.E. 1102, 151 Mass. 240, 1890 Mass. LEXIS 190 (Mass. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

C. Allen, J.

There is nothing in the circumstances disclosed which would have justified the court in withdrawing the case from the jury. It must of course now be assumed, since the verdict, that the defendant was negligent. There was evidence tending to show that the plaintiff was unable fully to dress himself before starting for the fire; and that he was not riding permanently with his leg between the rounds of the ladder, but only for the purpose of holding on while adjusting his belt. He could not be expected to use the same degree of care as might properly be required of one who had no such duty to perform as he had. Considering his duty and the exigency of the occasion, we cannot say that he was not in the exercise of due care. Snow v. Mousatonic Railroad, 8 Allen, 441, 448-450. Lawless v. Connecticut River Railroad, 136 Mass. 1, 5.

Exceptions overruled.

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

C. Allen, J.

There is nothing in the circumstances disclosed which would have justified the court in withdrawing the case from the jury. It must of course now be assumed, since the verdict, that the defendant was negligent. There was evidence tending to show that the plaintiff was unable fully to dress himself before starting for the fire; and that he was not riding permanently with his leg between the rounds of the ladder, but only for the purpose of holding on while adjusting his belt. He could not be expected to use the same degree of care as might properly be required of one who had no such duty to perform as he had. Considering his duty and the exigency of the occasion, we cannot say that he was not in the exercise of due care. Snow v. Mousatonic Railroad, 8 Allen, 441, 448-450. Lawless v. Connecticut River Railroad, 136 Mass. 1, 5.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 N.E. 1102, 151 Mass. 240, 1890 Mass. LEXIS 190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/magee-v-west-end-street-railway-co-mass-1890.

Opinion

C. Allen, J.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack