Tibbetts v. Maine Central Railroad

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Tibbetts v. Maine Central Railroad

138 A. 917, 126 Me. 596, 1927 Me. LEXIS 106

DecidedJuly 15, 1927

StatusPublished

This text of 138 A. 917 (Tibbetts v. Maine Central Railroad) 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

Tibbetts v. Maine Central Railroad, 138 A. 917, 126 Me. 596, 1927 Me. LEXIS 106 (Me. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiff, a passenger upon one of the trains of the defendant company, claims that she was injured by the negligent operation of the train when she was about to alight at a railway station. This action is brought to recover damages for the alleged negligence of the company’s servants. The defendant, while denying its negligence, urged that the plaintiff was barred from recovery on account of her own contributory negligence to the accident. Without entering into a discussion or deciding the question of negligence of the defendant, the majority of the Court are of opinion that the record shows that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, and the mandate will be: Motion for new trial granted.

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

The plaintiff, a passenger upon one of the trains of the defendant company, claims that she was injured by the negligent operation of the train when she was about to alight at a railway station. This action is brought to recover damages for the alleged negligence of the company’s servants. The defendant, while denying its negligence, urged that the plaintiff was barred from recovery on account of her own contributory negligence to the accident. Without entering into a discussion or deciding the question of negligence of the defendant, the majority of the Court are of opinion that the record shows that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, and the mandate will be: Motion for new trial granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A. 917, 126 Me. 596, 1927 Me. LEXIS 106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tibbetts-v-maine-central-railroad-me-1927.