Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

110 Vt. 92

2 A.2d 196

Farrell v. Greene

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided November 1, 1938

Supreme Court of Vermont · decided 1938-11-01

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently December 1941

3 state decisions

Relies on Tidd v. . Skinner · Wueppesahl v. Connecticut Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1938-11-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Moulton, G. J.

¶1 In this action the plaintiff seeks to recover for the loss of the services of his minor daughter, Bernice Farrell, and for money expended for medical attendance upon her, due to injuries sustained by her being struck by an automobile driven by the defendant Greene. The trial court set aside the plaintiff’s verdict and entered judgment for the defendant.

¶2 *93 The material facts are the same as in Bernice Farrell v. Greene, ante p. 87, 2 Atl. (2d) 194, in which we held that the plaintiff therein was contributorily negligent, and not entitled to recover. Since the contributory negligence of Bernice is a bar to this action brought by her parent (Tidd v. Skinner, 225 N. Y. 422, 122 N. E. 247, 3 A. L. R. 1145, 1151; Wueppeshall v. Connecticut Co., 87 Conn. 710, 89 Atl. 166), the decision in that case is conclusive in this.

¶3 Judgment affirmed.

/110/vt/92 · .json · Public domain