Waterhouse v. Calef

44 A. 591, 21 R.I. 470, 1899 R.I. LEXIS 96
CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island
DecidedNovember 10, 1899
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 44 A. 591 (Waterhouse v. Calef) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Waterhouse v. Calef, 44 A. 591, 21 R.I. 470, 1899 R.I. LEXIS 96 (R.I. 1899).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

(1) A sufficient ground for sustaining the non- *471 suit in this case is the fact that the testimony shows no defect in the highway.

Page & Page and Arthur Cushing, for plaintiff. Tillinghast & Murdoch, for defendant.

The accident occurred from the backing of a wagon, in which the plaintiff was seated, down hill and across the road against bowlders on the edge of an embankment six or seven feet high, and about eighteen feet from the traveled way. It does not appear whether this embankment was within the line of the highway; see Potts v. Allen, 19 R. I. 489. But, assuming it to be so, the bowlders formed a guard against the edge of the bank sufficient, at least, to keep the wagon from going into the ditch, and the bank itself was an ample distance from the roadway for ordinary travel on a country road. The plaintiff failed to sustain the allegations of his declaration.

Petition for new trial denied, and case remitted to the Common Pleas Division for judgment.

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

Related

Birckhead v. Mayor of Baltimore
197 A. 615 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1938)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
44 A. 591, 21 R.I. 470, 1899 R.I. LEXIS 96, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waterhouse-v-calef-ri-1899.