Willett v. Lewiston, Augusta & Waterville Street Railway

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Willett v. Lewiston, Augusta & Waterville Street Railway

92 A. 1085, 113 Me. 558, 1915 Me. LEXIS 99

DecidedJanuary 21, 1915

StatusPublished

This text of 92 A. 1085 (Willett v. Lewiston, Augusta & Waterville Street Railway) 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

Willett v. Lewiston, Augusta & Waterville Street Railway, 92 A. 1085, 113 Me. 558, 1915 Me. LEXIS 99 (Me. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

A motion by defendant for new trial upon the usual grounds. The plaintiff brought suit against defendant for the recovery of damages sustained by him through the alleged negligence of defendant by reason of which the plaintiff was thrown from one of the cars of defendant while riding thereon as a passenger.

A careful reading of the evidence fails to reveal sufficient to sustain a finding that defendant was negligent. It, also, is clear in the opinion of the court that the accident which caused the injury was due to the contributory negligence of the plaintiff and that the jury was not warranted in finding the contrary to be the fact. Manifestly, the jury either misapprehended the evidence or was moved by sympathy or bias in reaching its verdict. Motion sustained; Verdict set aside. New trial ordered.

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

A motion by defendant for new trial upon the usual grounds. The plaintiff brought suit against defendant for the recovery of damages sustained by him through the alleged negligence of defendant by reason of which the plaintiff was thrown from one of the cars of defendant while riding thereon as a passenger.

A careful reading of the evidence fails to reveal sufficient to sustain a finding that defendant was negligent. It, also, is clear in the opinion of the court that the accident which caused the injury was due to the contributory negligence of the plaintiff and that the jury was not warranted in finding the contrary to be the fact. Manifestly, the jury either misapprehended the evidence or was moved by sympathy or bias in reaching its verdict. Motion sustained; Verdict set aside. New trial ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 A. 1085, 113 Me. 558, 1915 Me. LEXIS 99, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willett-v-lewiston-augusta-waterville-street-railway-me-1915.