Waterhouse v. Calef
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.
Opinion
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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
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.