Messenger v. Dennie
Cases that cite this one
27 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Schoonover v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad (W. Va. 1911)
- Wade v. Buchanan (Mass. 1940)
- Willar v. Bergman (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1937)
- Moeller v. Packard (Cal. Ct. App. 1927)
- Miller v. Flash Chemical Co. (Mass. 1918)
- Havermale v. Houck (Md. 1913)
- Godfrey v. Boston Elevated Railway Co. (Mass. 1913)
- Mills v. Powers (Mass. 1913)
- Russo v. Charles S. Brown Co. (Mass. 1908)
- Beale v. Old Colony Street Railway Co. (Mass. 1907)
- Young v. Small (Mass. 1905)
- McDermott v. Boston Elevated Railway Co. (Mass. 1903)
- Jones v. Shattuck (Mass. 1900)
- Chicago & G. T. Ry. Co. v. Hoffman (Ill. App. Ct. 1899)
- Cleveland Terminal & Valley Railroad v. Heiman (Stark Circuit Court 1898)
- Calumet Electric Street Railway Co. v. Van Pelt (Ill. App. Ct. 1897)
- Payne v. Chicago & Alton Railroad (Mo. 1896)
- Hayes v. Norcross (Mass. 1895)
- Casey v. City of Malden (Mass. 1895)
- Mullen v. Springfield Street Railway Co. (Mass. 1895)
- Western Railway of Alabama v. Mutch (Ala. 1892)
- Merryman v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. (Iowa 1892)
- O'Shaughnessy v. Suffolk Brewing Co. (Mass. 1888)
- Patterson v. Hemenway (Mass. 1888)
- Ecliff v. Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co. (Mich. 1887)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
There was no evidence of due care on the part of the plaintiff. He voluntarily and thoughtlessly put himself in a position of great and obvious danger. He suddenly left the sleigh on which he was riding, while it was in motion, in a frequented thoroughfare, and within thirty feet of the defendant’s horse, without looking back or thinking of what might be following. His injury was the natural consequence of his careless act. He was engaged in the sport of riding upon the runners of sleighs in the public streets with the consent of his parents; and, if he was too young to appreciate the danger of his act, he was too young to engage in that sport, and his parents were negligent in permitting it.
For this reason, without considering whether there was any evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant, the court should have ruled that the plaintiff could not recover.
Exceptions sustained.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.