Keaveny v. Moran
Andrew Keaveny v. Michael Moran & others
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Sheldon, J.
1. The jury could have found that the plaintiff was in the exercise of due care. He was crossing North Beacon Street upon the proper crosswalk, walking in the usual way, after having looked in each direction. He observed an automobile coming, and stopped to keep out of its way. He was not bound to anticipate that a horse and wagon would come rapidly down Market Street, turn suddenly into the cross street and run against him.
2. There was evidence of the defendant’s negligence. It was for the jury to say whether the horse was beyond the control of the driver, when it turned suddenly into North Beacon Street and ran into the plaintiff. The circumstances were such that the jury could find that the accident would not have happened if the defendant’s horse had been managed with proper care.
See as to both these points Donovan v. Bernhard, ante, 181, and cases there cited.
According to the terms of the report, judgment must be entered for the plaintiff for the sum of $400.
Bo ordered.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 5 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.