Taylor v. Lewiston & Waterville Street Railway

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Taylor v. Lewiston & Waterville Street Railway

98 A. 928, 115 Me. 553, 1916 Me. LEXIS 74

DecidedOctober 28, 1916

StatusPublished

This text of 98 A. 928 (Taylor v. Lewiston & Waterville Street Railway) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Taylor v. Lewiston & Waterville Street Railway, 98 A. 928, 115 Me. 553, 1916 Me. LEXIS 74 (Me. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

An action to recover for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff by a collision between a two-horse team driven by the plaintiff, and an electric car of the defendant. The verdict was for the defendant, and the case is before this court on a motion to set aside the verdict.

Tascus Atwood, for plaintiff. Newell & Woodside, for defendant.

The only question necessary to consider is, was the jury authorized in finding the plaintiff guflty of contributory negligence in turning the two-horse team, loaded with three tons of sand, on the highway and attempting to drive across the tracks of the defendant when there was a car approaching that he could have seen at least eight hundred feet before he attempted to make the turn and the car remained in plain sight until the collision.

We think the jury were authorized from the evidence in their finding that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. Motion overruled.

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

An action to recover for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff by a collision between a two-horse team driven by the plaintiff, and an electric car of the defendant. The verdict was for the defendant, and the case is before this court on a motion to set aside the verdict.

Tascus Atwood, for plaintiff. Newell & Woodside, for defendant.

The only question necessary to consider is, was the jury authorized in finding the plaintiff guflty of contributory negligence in turning the two-horse team, loaded with three tons of sand, on the highway and attempting to drive across the tracks of the defendant when there was a car approaching that he could have seen at least eight hundred feet before he attempted to make the turn and the car remained in plain sight until the collision.

We think the jury were authorized from the evidence in their finding that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. Motion overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 A. 928, 115 Me. 553, 1916 Me. LEXIS 74, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-lewiston-waterville-street-railway-me-1916.