Weeks v. Inhabitants of Parsonsfield

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Weeks v. Inhabitants of Parsonsfield

65 Me. 285, 1876 Me. LEXIS 56

DecidedMarch 13, 1876

StatusPublished

This text of 65 Me. 285 (Weeks v. Inhabitants of Parsonsfield) 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

Weeks v. Inhabitants of Parsonsfield, 65 Me. 285, 1876 Me. LEXIS 56 (Me. 1876).

Pincite

Opinion

Walton, J.

What obstructions or othqr inconveniences, will render a highway defective, so as 'to make the town liable, if an injury is thereby occasioned, is to a considerable extent a matter of opinion or judgment. And it is one in relation to which persons of ordinarily good judgment are liable to differ. The same is true as to what constitutes due care. The court must not therefore assume that the jury have acted dishonestly, or perversely, simply because they have come to a conclusion different from that to which the court would have come upon the same evidence. To justify setting aside the verdict of a jury, the court must feel that it is clearly, manifestly wrong. In this case our conclusion is, that the verdict is not so clearly, so manifestly wrong,.either with respect to the alleged defect in the road, or" the exercise of due care on the part of the plaintiff, as to justify us in setting it aside. Motion overruled.

Judgment on the verdict.

Appleton, C. J., Barrows, Daneorth, Yirg-in and Peters, JJ., concurred.

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

Walton, J.

What obstructions or othqr inconveniences, will render a highway defective, so as 'to make the town liable, if an injury is thereby occasioned, is to a considerable extent a matter of opinion or judgment. And it is one in relation to which persons of ordinarily good judgment are liable to differ. The same is true as to what constitutes due care. The court must not therefore assume that the jury have acted dishonestly, or perversely, simply because they have come to a conclusion different from that to which the court would have come upon the same evidence. To justify setting aside the verdict of a jury, the court must feel that it is clearly, manifestly wrong. In this case our conclusion is, that the verdict is not so clearly, so manifestly wrong,.either with respect to the alleged defect in the road, or" the exercise of due care on the part of the plaintiff, as to justify us in setting it aside. Motion overruled.

Judgment on the verdict.

Appleton, C. J., Barrows, Daneorth, Yirg-in and Peters, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 Me. 285, 1876 Me. LEXIS 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weeks-v-inhabitants-of-parsonsfield-me-1876.