O'Leary v. Brockton Street Railway Co.

58 N.E. 585, 177 Mass. 187, 1900 Mass. LEXIS 1028
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided November 28, 1900·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Hammond, J.

The plaintiff’s requests for instructions were all properly refused. Each one of them makes it imperative under the conditions therein stated that the motorman should have taken such measures as would avoid a collision. But the [191]*191real duty upon him was simply to use reasonable care to avoid a collision. The motorman testified that he saw the plaintiff’s team and had complete control of his car, but he did not stop, because he thought there was room to go by. It was a question for the jury whether in coming to that conclusion and acting upon it he was negligent.

No exceptions were taken to the instructions actually given, and they seem to have been sufficiently full.

Exceptions overruled.

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

O'Leary v. Brockton Street Railway Co., 58 N.E. 585, 177 Mass. 187, 1900 Mass. LEXIS 1028 (Mass. 1900).

58 N.E. 585 (O'Leary v. Brockton Street Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Heidemann v. St. Paul City Railway Co.
117 N.W. 226 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1908)
Rubinovitch v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
77 N.E. 895 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1906)
Carney v. Concord Street Railway
57 A. 218 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1903)