O'Leary v. Brockton Street Railway Co.
This text of 58 N.E. 585 (O'Leary v. Brockton 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.
Opinion
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
58 N.E. 585, 177 Mass. 187, 1900 Mass. LEXIS 1028, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oleary-v-brockton-street-railway-co-mass-1900.