TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Murdock v. New York & Boston Despatch Express Co.

Charles C. Murdock v. New York and Boston Despatch Express Company

Murdock v. N.Y. & Boston Despatch Express Co., 46 N.E. 57 (Mass. 1897)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 24, 1897
Judges
Holmes
Citations
46 N.E. 57167 Mass. 5491897 Mass. LEXIS 390
Headnotes
Personal Injuries — Negligence — Question for Jury — Evidence of Average Monthly Earnings. In an action for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff by a runaway horse, there was evidence that the horse was left standing close behind a wagon, and, it would seem probable, caught its bridle on a T-shaped handle of a door in the rear of the wagon, pulled its bridle off, and started on a run. It also appeared that there was no weight attached to the horse at the moment of the accident. Held, that it could not be said that the jury were not warranted in finding the defendant negligent. In an action for personal injuries, evidence of the plaintiff as to his average monthly earnings is admissible to show the value of the time lost by him.
Summary
Tort, for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff while riding a bicycle by being struck by a runaway horse. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Braley, J., the defendant requested the judge to rule that the plaintiff could not recover. The judge declined so to rule. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; and the defendant alleged exceptions, the nature of which appears in the opinion.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Holmes

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Holmes, J.

This is an action for running the plaintiff down by a runaway horse. It is not for us to consider what our verdict would be on the printed report, but only whether, on the evidence, the presiding judge could have taken it from the jury. The horse was left standing close behind a wagon, and, it would seem likely, caught its bridle on a T-shaped handle of a door in the rear of the wagon, pulled its bridle off, and in this way was started on its run. There was testimony that the horse was fastened by a strap to a twenty-pound weight when he was left. But there was no weight attached at the moment of the accident, and that fact and the escape of the horse are some evidence that he was left without one. We cannot say that the *550 jury were not warranted in finding the defendant negligent. See Barnes v. Chapin, 4 Allen, 444 ; McDonald v. Snelling, 14 Allen, 290 , 297; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Quinn, 56 Ill. 319 ; McCahill v. Kipp, 2 E. D. Smith, 413 ; Rumsey v. Nelson, 58 Vt. 590 ; Garlick v. Dorsey, 48 Ala. 220 ; Goodman v. Taylor, 5 C. & P. 410.

The plaintiff was allowed to testify to his average monthly earnings, and an exception was taken. We are of opinion that the evidence was admissible. There is no question of pleading about it. A part of the immediate damage in all such cases is that the plaintiff is prevented from working. To ascertain the economic value of what he is deprived of, there seems to be no better help than to take his average earnings in the past, subject perhaps to the cautions to be found in the English cases. Phillips v. London & Southwestern Railway, 5 C. P. D. 280, 286, 290; S. C. 5 Q. B. D. 78, 81, 87; 4 Q. B. D. 406, 408. Armsworth v. Southeastern Railway, 11 Jur. 758, 760, ad fin. Ehrgott v. New York, 96 N. Y. 264, 275, 276 . New Jersey Express Co. v. Nichols, 4 Vroom, 434 , 437. Pennsylvania Railroad v. Dale, 76 Penn. St. 47. Welch v. Ware, 32 Mich. 77, 81 . Parshall v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway, 35 Fed. Rep. 649, 651. McNamara v. Clintonville, 62 Wis. 207, 210 . Collins v. Dodge, 37 Minn. 503 . Myhan v. Louisiana Electric Light & Power Co. 41 La. An. 964, 969. See Ballou v. Farnum, 11 Allen, 73 , 79. Exceptions overruled.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 14 cases

View all citing references →
1897: 11898: 11901: 11902: 11906: 11910: 11918: 11924: 11932: 11934: 11935: 11939: 11961: 11974: 118972026peak 1897 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Simmons v. Leighton244 N.W. 883 (S.D. 1932)
  2. Byre v. Wieczorek217 N.W.2d 151 (S.D. 1974)
  3. Armstrong v. Spokane International Railway Co.172 P. 578 (Wash. 1918)
  4. Palmer v. Winona Railway & Light Co.85 N.W. 941 (Minn. 1901)
  5. Kane v. Fields Corner Grille, Inc.171 N.E.2d 287 (Mass. 1961)
  6. Whipple v. Rich63 N.E. 5 (Mass. 1902)

Most recent

  1. Byre v. Wieczorek217 N.W.2d 151 (S.D. 1974)
  2. Kane v. Fields Corner Grille, Inc.171 N.E.2d 287 (Mass. 1961)
  3. Doherty v. Ruiz18 N.E.2d 542 (Mass. 1939)
  4. Woodman v. Haynes289 Mass. 114 (1935)
  5. Shea v. Rettie192 N.E. 44 (Mass. 1934)
  6. Simmons v. Leighton244 N.W. 883 (S.D. 1932)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 7

DepthCaseCited by
Ehrgott v. Mayor, Etc., of City of N.Y., 96 N.Y. 264 (1884) 230
Welch v. Ware, 32 Mich. 77 (1875) 32
McNamara v. Vill. of Clintonville, 22 N.W. 472 (Wis. 1885) 24
Collins v. Dodge, 35 N.W. 368 (Minn. 1887) 6
Rumsey v. Nelson, 58 Vt. 590 (1886) 4
Garlick v. Dorsey, 48 Ala. 220 (1872) 3
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Quinn, 56 Ill. 319 (1870) 3

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list