Owens v. Harvard Brewing Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Owens v. Harvard Brewing Co.

80 N.E. 509, 194 Mass. 498, 1907 Mass. LEXIS 1012

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedFebruary 28, 1907

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 80 N.E. 509 (Owens v. Harvard Brewing 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

Owens v. Harvard Brewing Co., 80 N.E. 509, 194 Mass. 498, 1907 Mass. LEXIS 1012 (Mass. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Morton, J.

The evidence was conflicting whether barrels were placed on each side of the opening left by the removal of the bulkhead to prevent any one from falling into it, and the question was plainly one for the jury. So also we think was the question of the plaintiff’s due care. He had some right at least [500]*500to assume that bulkheads would not be left open in the sidewalk without being suitably guarded, and knowledge of the existence of the bulkhead did not necessarily convict him of heedlessness. It was for the jury, taking into account, all of the circumstances, the time of day, his knowledge of the locality, the nature of his occupation and such other matters, if any, as were entitled to consideration, to say whether he acted as a man of reasonable prudence would have done under like circumstances. Woods v. Boston, 121 Mass. 337. Fuller v. Hyde Park, 162 Mass. 51. Lamb v. Worcester, 177 Mass. 82. We see no error in refusing the ruling that was requested.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Morton, J.

The evidence was conflicting whether barrels were placed on each side of the opening left by the removal of the bulkhead to prevent any one from falling into it, and the question was plainly one for the jury. So also we think was the question of the plaintiff’s due care. He had some right at least [500]*500to assume that bulkheads would not be left open in the sidewalk without being suitably guarded, and knowledge of the existence of the bulkhead did not necessarily convict him of heedlessness. It was for the jury, taking into account, all of the circumstances, the time of day, his knowledge of the locality, the nature of his occupation and such other matters, if any, as were entitled to consideration, to say whether he acted as a man of reasonable prudence would have done under like circumstances. Woods v. Boston, 121 Mass. 337. Fuller v. Hyde Park, 162 Mass. 51. Lamb v. Worcester, 177 Mass. 82. We see no error in refusing the ruling that was requested.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 N.E. 509, 194 Mass. 498, 1907 Mass. LEXIS 1012, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/owens-v-harvard-brewing-co-mass-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack