Warner v. Holyoke Water Power Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Warner v. Holyoke Water Power Co.

200 N.E.2d 257, 347 Mass. 781, 1964 Mass. LEXIS 944

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJune 22, 1964

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 200 N.E.2d 257 (Warner v. Holyoke Water Power 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

Warner v. Holyoke Water Power Co., 200 N.E.2d 257, 347 Mass. 781, 1964 Mass. LEXIS 944 (Mass. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Exceptions overruled. The judge directed a verdict for the defendant on the following undisputed evidence: The plaintiff, a prospective participant in an outboard speedboat race on the Connecticut River in the South Hadley Falls vicinity, with which he was totally unfamiliar, arrived at the launching site where there were about fifty speedboats and seventy-five people, “just went ahead and put his boat in the river,” made no inquiry of anyone where the race course was located or laid out, proceeded upstream (where in fact the race was to be run) to adjust the motor and test the propeller, reversed his direction and went downstream at fifty miles an hour or more, meanwhile adjusting the carburetor while [782]*782in a kneeling position, glanced back and saw another boat behind him, and then saw the flashboards of the dam about thirty feet ahead, and, at fifty miles an hour, went over the dam operated by the defendant under legislative grants of 1848 and 1859. The only rational inference is that the plaintiff’s preoccupation with the motor to attain maximum speed was the sole active and producing cause of his accident. Clough v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co. 342 Mass. 31, 36.

John J. O’Connell for the plaintiff. Philip O’Brien, Jr. (Robert H. Doran with him) for the defendant.

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

Exceptions overruled. The judge directed a verdict for the defendant on the following undisputed evidence: The plaintiff, a prospective participant in an outboard speedboat race on the Connecticut River in the South Hadley Falls vicinity, with which he was totally unfamiliar, arrived at the launching site where there were about fifty speedboats and seventy-five people, “just went ahead and put his boat in the river,” made no inquiry of anyone where the race course was located or laid out, proceeded upstream (where in fact the race was to be run) to adjust the motor and test the propeller, reversed his direction and went downstream at fifty miles an hour or more, meanwhile adjusting the carburetor while [782]*782in a kneeling position, glanced back and saw another boat behind him, and then saw the flashboards of the dam about thirty feet ahead, and, at fifty miles an hour, went over the dam operated by the defendant under legislative grants of 1848 and 1859. The only rational inference is that the plaintiff’s preoccupation with the motor to attain maximum speed was the sole active and producing cause of his accident. Clough v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co. 342 Mass. 31, 36.

John J. O’Connell for the plaintiff. Philip O’Brien, Jr. (Robert H. Doran with him) for the defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 N.E.2d 257, 347 Mass. 781, 1964 Mass. LEXIS 944, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/warner-v-holyoke-water-power-co-mass-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack