Sullivan v. Rowe

80 N.E. 459, 194 Mass. 500, 1907 Mass. LEXIS 1013
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided February 28, 1907·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Loring, J.

In our opinion the falling of the buffer was under the circumstances in itself evidence of negligence. This disposes of the fifth request and also of the request that the jury be directed to find for the defendant. Although the plaintiff in his evidence went beyond showing that the buffer fell, he did not go far enough to deprive him of the case made by the falling of the buffer. The case in this respect comes within Cassady v. Old Colony Street Railway, 184 Mass. 156.

[504] Taking the instruction as a whole, it is not subject to the complaint now made, that the jury were not properly instructed as to the burden of proving negligence.

Evidence of the condition of the bolt, immediately after thy accident was admissible.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Sullivan v. Rowe, 80 N.E. 459, 194 Mass. 500, 1907 Mass. LEXIS 1013 (Mass. 1907).

80 N.E. 459 (Sullivan v. Rowe) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Erickson v. Meier & Frank Co.
18 P.2d 207 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1932)
Colorado Springs & Interurban Railway Co. v. Reese
169 P. 572 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1917)
Wyldes ex rel. McLaughlin v. Patterson
153 N.W. 630 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1915)
Lucid v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours Powder Co.
199 F. 377 (Ninth Circuit, 1912)
Graaf v. Vulcan Iron Works
109 P. 1016 (Washington Supreme Court, 1910)
McNamara v. Boston & Maine Railroad
89 N.E. 131 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1909)
Iarussi v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co.
155 F. 654 (U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois, 1907)
Doe v. Boston & Worcester Street Railway Co.
80 N.E. 814 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1907)