Mooney v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co.

70 N.E. 933, 185 Mass. 547, 1904 Mass. LEXIS 863
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMay 18, 1904
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 70 N.E. 933 (Mooney v. Edison Electric Illuminating 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
Mooney v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co., 70 N.E. 933, 185 Mass. 547, 1904 Mass. LEXIS 863 (Mass. 1904).

Opinion

Hammond, J.

The plaintiff seeks to hold the two private corporations upon the ground that by their negligence the highway became charged with electricity, and the city of Boston upon the ground that it negligently suffered the highway to remain thus charged. As against the first two the liability rests solely upon the common law; as against the city, solely upon the statute. The private corporations had nothing to do with the negligence charged against the city, and the city had nothing to do with the negligence charged against the private corporations. The liability of the city depends upon statutory conditions and is limited in amount, while the liability of the other defendants depends upon conditions entirely different, and is measured only by the amount of damages suffered by the plaintiff. As between the defendants the liability of the private corporations is primary, that of the city secondary; and the city, in case of a recovery against it, could maintain an action against these other defendants to recover what it paid. Boston v. Coon, 175 Mass. 283, and cases cited.

From these considerations it is plain that neither in fact nor in legal intendment are these defendants joint tortfeasors. They therefore cannot be held as such, and the declaration is bad. ITor cases illustrative of the principle-involved, see Parsons v. Winchell, 5 Cush. 592; Mulchey v. Methodist Religious Society, 125 Mass. 487; Ridley v. Knox, 138 Mass. 83; Dutton v. Lansdowne Borough, 198 Penn. St. 563.

Demurrer sustained.

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

Related

Lyons v. Durocher
169 N.E.2d 911 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1960)
Miller v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co.
186 N.E. 581 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1933)
Potomac Electric Power Co. v. Hemler
47 App. D.C. 34 (D.C. Circuit, 1917)
Township of Hart v. Noret
158 N.W. 17 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1916)
Field v. Gowdy
85 N.E. 884 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1908)
Feneff v. Boston & Maine Railroad
82 N.E. 705 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1907)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
70 N.E. 933, 185 Mass. 547, 1904 Mass. LEXIS 863, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mooney-v-edison-electric-illuminating-co-mass-1904.