Wells v. Burlington Rapid Transit Co.

Supreme Court of Vermont

Wells v. Burlington Rapid Transit Co.

68 A.2d 912, 116 Vt. 75, 1949 Vt. LEXIS 108

DecidedNovember 1, 1949

StatusPublished

This text of 68 A.2d 912 (Wells v. Burlington Rapid Transit Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wells v. Burlington Rapid Transit Co., 68 A.2d 912, 116 Vt. 75, 1949 Vt. LEXIS 108 (Vt. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Cleary, J.

This is an action of tort for negligence brought by Bert Wells for expenses and loss of services suffered by him because of personal injuries sustained by his wife on October 23, 1947, when getting off a bus owned and operated by the Burlington Rapid Transit Company, Inc., while she was a paying passenger. Trial was had by jury with a verdict for the defendants. The case is here on exceptions to the failure of the court to charge as requested by the plaintiff and to the overruling of plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict.

The case was tried below and heard here with the case, Helen Wells v. Burlington Rapid Transit Company, Inc. and Century Indemnity Company, Inc., decided at the present term of this Court, ante, page 72, 68 A2d 911, and involves the same questions. For the reasons specified in our opinion in that case the entry order is: Hidgment affirmed.

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

Cleary, J.

This is an action of tort for negligence brought by Bert Wells for expenses and loss of services suffered by him because of personal injuries sustained by his wife on October 23, 1947, when getting off a bus owned and operated by the Burlington Rapid Transit Company, Inc., while she was a paying passenger. Trial was had by jury with a verdict for the defendants. The case is here on exceptions to the failure of the court to charge as requested by the plaintiff and to the overruling of plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict.

The case was tried below and heard here with the case, Helen Wells v. Burlington Rapid Transit Company, Inc. and Century Indemnity Company, Inc., decided at the present term of this Court, ante, page 72, 68 A2d 911, and involves the same questions. For the reasons specified in our opinion in that case the entry order is: Hidgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 A.2d 912, 116 Vt. 75, 1949 Vt. LEXIS 108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wells-v-burlington-rapid-transit-co-vt-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack