Myers v. Boston & Maine Railroad

95 N.E. 76, 209 Mass. 55, 1911 Mass. LEXIS 899
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided May 18, 1911·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Hammond, J.

These are two actions of tort, the first being for personal injuries sustained, by a minor, and the second by his father for loss of services of the minor. The actions were tried together.

There is no evidence that the minor was invited into the car by any one representing or having the right to act for the defendant ; and he was therefore at the most a mere licensee. The measure of the defendant’s duty was to refrain from wanton or reckless conduct tending to injure him. There was no evidence of such conduct.

The order directing verdicts for the defendant was correct. In each case the entry must be

Exceptions overruled.

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

Myers v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 95 N.E. 76, 209 Mass. 55, 1911 Mass. LEXIS 899 (Mass. 1911).

95 N.E. 76 (Myers v. Boston & Maine Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Backman v. Guiliano
6 Mass. App. Dec. 24 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1953)
Buddy v. Union Terminal Railway Co.
207 S.W. 821 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1918)
Papich v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.
183 Iowa 601 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1918)
Khinoveck v. Boston & Maine Railroad
96 N.E. 52 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1911)