Benjamin v. Holyoke St. R. Co.
Citation | 35 N.E. 95,160 Mass. 3 |
Parties | BENJAMIN v. HOLYOKE ST. RY. CO. |
Decision Date | 20 October 1893 |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
The plaintiff claimed, and introduced evidence tending to show, that when she was thrown out of the wagon to the ground, she struck on her face and stomach, and was dragged across the sidewalk. Her eye was cut. She had a bruise on back of her neck, in lower part of her bowels across her limb, and also a bruise on her back. That she went home, and was confined to her bed some 12 days. That 10 or 12 days after she suffered a miscarriage, that she claimed was due to her accident, and that she suffered from uterine troubles from the same cause. In direct examination and in examination in chief, her counsel asked a physician the following question: "If a woman was with child, and met with an accident, so that she was thrown over the footboard of a wagon by a runaway horse; thrown to the ground, on her stomach or side; went home, and soon after went to bed; and if she was confined to the bed for ten or twelve days, and if at the end of that time she suffered a miscarriage,--would the facts, if true, be an adequate cause for a miscarriage?" To this question the defendant objected, but the court ruled it competent. The witness answered that it would be considered an adequate cause for the miscarriage. The same witness was asked by plaintiff's counsel, against objections by defendant, the following questions, and gave the following answers The same witness was asked by plaintiff's counsel, in direct examination and in chief, the following question: "Is the presence of flesh on the woman conclusive evidence whether she has uterine trouble or not?" To this question the defendant duly objected. The court, however, ruled that the question was proper, and permitted same to be asked and answered, to which ruling and permission the defendant duly excepted. The answer to the question was as follows:
A.L. Green, for plaintiff.
William H. Brooks, for defendant.
The case which the plaintiff's evidence tended to support was as follows: Appleton and Beech streets crossed each other at right angles. There was an electric street railway on Appleton street. The plaintiff was driving on Beech street towards Appleton street; saw a car pass; though it would be safe to cross; drove onto Appleton street, as if...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Spiking v. Consolidated Ry. & Power Co.
...Me. 115, 49 A. 609; Marden v. Railroad, 100 Maine 41, 109 Am. St. 479; Robbins v. Railroad, 165 Mass. 30, 42 N.E. 334; Benjamin v. Railroad, 160 Mass. 3, 39 Am. St. 446; Traction Co. v. Scott, 58 N. J. L. 682, 55 Am. Rep. 620, 33 L. R. S. 122; Wendall v. Railroad, 91 N.Y. 429; Marden v. Rai......
-
Acton v. Fargo & Moorhead St. Ry. Co.
...Co. v. Pheanis, 43 Ind. App. 653, 85 N. E. 1040; Street R. R. Co. v. Haynes, 112 Tenn. 712, 81 S. W. 374;Benjamin v. Holyoke St. Ry. Co., 160 Mass. 3, 35 N. E. 95, 39 Am. St. Rep. 446;Ablard v. St. Ry. Co., 139 Mich. 248, 102 N. W. 741;Noll v. St. Ry. Co., 100 Mo. App. 367, 73 S. W. 907; Fu......
-
Bremer v. St. Paul City Ry. Co.
...Atty. Gen. v. Met. Ry. Co., 125 Mass. 515, 28 Am. Rep. 264;Robbins v. Springfield, 165 Mass. 30, 42 N. E. 334;Benjamin v. Railway, 160 Mass. 3, 35 N. E. 95,39 Am. St. Rep. 446;Hall v. Railway Co., 13 Utah, 258, 44 Pac. 1046,57 Am. St. Rep. 726;Newark Ry. Co. v. Block, 55 N. J. Law, 605, 27 ......
-
Action v. Fargo & Moorhead Street Railway Company
... ... v. Detroit United R. Co. 139 Mich. 248, 102 N.W. 741; ... Vincent v. Norton & T. Street R. Co. 180 Mass. 104, ... 61 N.E. 822; Benjamin v. Holyoke Street R. Co. 160 ... Mass. 3, 39 Am. St. Rep. 446, 35 N.E. 95; Funck v ... Metropolitan Street R. Co. 133 Mo.App. 419, 113 S.W ... ...