Uggla v. West End St. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 04 January 1894
• Citation: 160 Mass. 351,35 N.E. 1126
• Parties: UGGLA v. WEST END ST. RY. CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

160 Mass. 351

35 N.E. 1126

UGGLA v. WEST END ST. RY. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

January 4, 1894

COUNSEL

John D. Long and Charles E. Todd, for plaintiff.

M.F Dickinson, Jr., and William B. Sprout, for defendant.

OPINION

BARKER J.

The plaintiff, while driving on Park square, in Boston, was struck by a broken iron attached to a wire guy. The iron was part of an ear used to clasp a trolley wire and apply to it a strain from the guy, in order to keep the trolley wire in place around a curve and over the defendant's track. The ear broke with the strain, and one part of it fell, striking the plaintiff on his head. As to these facts there was no dispute at the trial, and there was no other evidence that the defendant was in fault. There was, however, other evidence, introduced by the defendant, that it was not guilty of negligence, tending to show that the break was a clean break, bright in color and appearance, and that the iron was sound all through, with no flaw or defect in it, and also that the whole apparatus was manufactured and put up by a manufacturer of the highest reputation; that the ear and guy constituted the best and strongest device known at the time for keeping trolley wires in place; that the defendant employed a corps of competent superintendents, foremen, and inspectors who inspected the whole line weekly, including the ears and their attachments; and that this particular part of the line had been inspected within a week prior to the accident. The exceptions taken were to certain portions of the charge to the jury, which the defendant contends were wrong, in two respects: First, as to the weight which the jury should give to the happening of the accident itself as evidence of the defendant's negligence; and, next, because the charge held the defendant to too high a degree of care.

1. The part of the charge which the defendant contends is objectionable on the first ground is the sentence in which the presiding justice, after having recited the manner in which, as was conceded, the accident occurred, and having said that, if nothing further appeared, it would be competent for the jury to find negligence on the part of the defendant further said: "The plaintiff must prove negligence, but when he proves the facts to which I have called your attention, and nothing else appears in the case, a jury may well find, and should find, negligence on the part of ...