Drennan v. Grady
167 Mass. 415
Mass.1897Check Treatment• There was evidence for the jury that the plaintiff was more than a mere licensee. There was evidence that the water-closet and urinal were provided for the use of the customers of the defendant, and that the plaintiff was a customer. On the evidence, the questions of the due care of the plaintiff and of the negligence of the defendant were rightly left to the jury. Hendricken v. Meadows, 154 Mass. 599.
Exceptions overruled.