Colvin v. Peabody
| Decision Date | 30 November 1891 |
| Parties | COLVIN v. PEABODY. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
J.P. Sweeney, for plaintiff.
Jesse C. Ivy, for defendant.
1. Upon the uncontradicted facts it is quite clear that Wedger and Tully were acting for the defendant in firing the fire-works, and the instruction that he was responsible for their negligence was correct.
2. The defendant now contends that the declaration alleges injury to the plaintiff from a bomb, while the evidence is consistent with the supposition that she was injured by a rocket; and that, therefore, the declaration is not supported. As to this ground of objection it would be enough to say that it does not appear to have been taken at the trial; but, if it had been, the evidence was sufficient to be submitted to the jury.
3. There was sufficient evidence for the jury of the negligence of the defendant's agents. The evidence tended to show that the mortars were discharged in too small an inclosure for perpendicular firing to be safe; that insufficient time was taken for preparation; that the firing was done in somewhat of a hurry; that due care in firing bombs requires that the mortars should be so aimed that the bombs will not fall upon the people; and that the bomb or shell which hit the plaintiff fell at a place far from where it was intended to fall, or safe for it to fall. The defendant now contends that there was no evidence of the negligent firing off of a particular mortar from which the plaintiff received her injury. There was, however, nothing to show that anybody else was discharging mortars near by, and the jury might well find that she was hurt by a bomb or fragment of a shell carelessly fired from a mortar by the defendant's agents, and this was enough, without identifying the particular mortar, or the particular discharge, or tracing the bomb in its flight.
4. The evidence of ordinary care on the part of the plaintiff was sufficient. The evidence tended to show that she stood in the midst of the crowd that had gathered to see the display, and apparently in the place where they were expected to stand. Exceptions overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hydell v. Railway Co.
...192 Ill. 9; Swainson v. Railway Co., 3 Exq. Div., 341; Hardy v. Sheldon Co., 37 L.R.A. 33; Blake v. Ferris, 5 N.Y. 48; Colvin v. Peabody, 155 Mass. 104; 1 Thompson on Negligence, sec. 579; Railway Co. v. State, 58 Md. 372; Railroad Co. v. Craft, 69 F. 124; Railroad Co. v. Stoerner, 51 F. 51......
-
O'brien v. Shea
...v. Presby, 120 Mass. 285. No contention can be made in this court upon a point which was not taken in the superior court. Colvin v. Peabody, 155 Mass. 104, 29 N.E. 59; Barker v. Lawrence Manuf. Co., 176 Mass. 203, N.E. 366; Henderson v. Raymond Syndicate, 183 Mass. 443, 446, 67 N.E. 427; Ho......
-
Christensen v. Bremer
...2 Q. B. D. 102; Wellington v. Downer Kerosene Oil Co., 104 Mass. 64;Boston & Albany Railroad v. Shanly, 107 Mass. 568;Colvin v. Peabody, 155 Mass. 104, 29 N. E. 59;Thornhill v. Carpenter-Morton Co., 220 Mass. 593, 108 N. E. 474;Coughtry v. Globe Woolen Co., 56 N. Y. 124, 15 Am. Rep. 387;Dev......
-
Thornhill v. Carpenter-morton Co.
... ... Little v ... Blunt, 13 Pick. 473, 476; Wellington v. Downer ... Kerosene Oil Co., 104 Mass. 64, 67, 68; Colvin v ... Peabody, 155 Mass. 104, 107, 29 N.E. 59; Goodhue v ... Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 175 Mass. 187, 188, 55 N.E ... The ... ...