Coleman v. Lowell St. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 18 June 1902 |
| Citation | 64 N.E. 402,181 Mass. 591 |
| Parties | COLEMAN v. LOWELL, ETC., ST. RY. CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
John J. O'Connor, for plaintiff.
Geo. F. & Geo. R. Richardson, L. T. Trull, and F. N. Wier, for defendant.
The only contention now made in support of the bill of exceptions is that the plaintiff was not in the exercise of due care. He testified without objection that he judged the car to be a safe distance away. There was conflicting evidence as to the distance of the car from the team when the plaintiff attempted to cross the track, and also as to the speed of the car. In our opinion, the question whether the plaintiff was in the exercise of due care was for the jury.
Exceptions overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hennessey v. Taylor
...due care, though the accident proved that her judgment was erroneous. Coleman v. Lowell, Lawrence & Haverhill Street Railway Co., 181 Mass. 591, 64 N. E. 402. The defendant puts much emphasis on her language that ‘she did not see any automobile coming,’ contending that she had seen it arriv......
-
Hennessey v. Taylor
... ... 263; Creamer v. West End Street ... Railway Co., 156 Mass. 320, 31 N.E. 391, 16 L. R. A ... 490, 32 Am. St. Rep. 456; Mathes v. Lowell, Lawrence & Haverhill Street Railway Co., 177 Mass. 416, 59 N.E. 77; ... Donovan v. Lynn & Boston Railroad Co., 185 Mass ... 533, 70 N.E. 1029; ... jury to have exercised due care, though the accident proved ... that her judgment was erroneous. Coleman v. Lowell, ... Lawrence & Haverhill Street Railway Co., 181 Mass. 591, ... 64 N.E. 402 ... The ... defendant puts much ... ...
-
Bouma v. Dubois
...a jury to have exercised due care, though the accident proved that her judgment was erroneous. Coleman v. Lowell L. & H. Street R. Co., 181 Mass. 591 [64 N. E. 402]. The defendant put much emphasis on her language that ‘she did not see any automobile coming,’ contending that she had seen it......
-
Horsman v. Brockton & P. St. Ry. Co.
...and ascertained, before attempting to cross, if a car was coming, were questions of fact and not of law. Coleman v. Lowell & Lawrence & Haverhill St. Ry., 181 Mass. 591, 64 N. E. 402;Orth v. Boston Elevated R. R., 188 Mass. 427, 74 N. E. 673;Hennessey v. Taylor, 189 Mass. 583, 76 N. E. 224,......