Miller v. Pendleton
This text of 74 Mass. 547 (Miller v. Pendleton) 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.
Opinion
1. The evidence of custom was rightly rejected, for several reasons. It did not tend to prove a general usage, or to prove that the defendant’s custom was right in this particular case. The usage sought to be proved would not be a good usage if it prevailed; it would make the safety of the passenger depend upon his own conduct, and not on the care and vigilance of the ferryman. If the putting up of the chain was a reasonable and proper precaution, it ought to be put up by the ferryman, without a request; if it. was not, a request would not make it so.
2. No doubt this action will lie. Although a ferryman is licensed, and assumes certain duties, under our statutes, he still holds himself out as a common carrier for hire, and as such is liable for any want of care.
Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
74 Mass. 547, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-pendleton-mass-1857.