Adduci v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 18 June 1913
• Citation: Adduci v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co., 215 Mass. 336, 102 N.E. 315 (Mass. 1913)
• Parties: ADDUCI v. BOSTON ELEVATED RY. CO.
• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

215 Mass. 336

102 N.E. 315

ADDUCI

v.BOSTON ELEVATED RY. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

June 18, 1913.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; W. P. Hall, Judge.

Action by John B. Adduci against the Boston Elevated Railway Company. There was a verdict for defendant, and plaintiff excepted. Exceptions overruled.

John F. McDonald and Jas. M. Graham, both of Boston, for plaintiff.

Russell A. Sears and Chas. S. French, both of Boston, for defendant.

DE COURCY, J.

The plaintiff was a passenger on an eight-wheeled open car. It appears from the testimony and the photographs that on either side and close to the framework were four iron wheel guards, each about 12 inches high, 15 inches long and extending out upon the running board about half its width, or 7 inches. While he was in the act of alighting from the car his foot struck the guard that was located opposite the end of his seat and he slipped to the ground, receiving the injuries complained of. The car was stationary at the time. The plaintiff does not contend that the evidence discloses any negligence on the part of the defendant aside from the presence of this sheath over the wheel as a part of the permanent construction of the car. It was not in a defective condition, and was in plain sight to every one that got on the running board.

While a common carrier is bound to exercise a high degree of care and diligence in the selection, maintenance, inspection and use of its cars and their appliances, it is not required to provide immediately and regardless of expense every new equipment that human skill and ingenuity devises to prevent accidents. It is bound to adopt approved appliances that are in general use and necessary for the safety of passengers, but it is not obliged to discard those that always have been found to be adequate and safe merely because they may be a source of possible danger to a passenger using them for a purpose for which they were not intended. Mullen v. Springfield St. Ry., 164 Mass. 450, 41 N. E. 664;Gargan v. West End St. Ry., 176 Mass. 106, 57 N. E. 217,49 L. R. A. 421, 79 Am. St. Rep. 298;Byron v. Lynn & Boston R. R., 177 Mass. 303, 58 N. E. 1015;Farley v. Philadelphia Traction Co., 132 Pa. 58, 18 Atl. 1090;Howell v. Union Traction Co., 202 Pa. 338, 51 Atl. 885;Werbowlsky v. Ft. Wayne & Elmwood Ry., 86 Mich. 236, 48 N. W. 1097,24 Am. St. Rep. 120;Lorimer v. St. Paul City Ry., 48 Minn. 391, 51 N. W. 125;Witsell v. West Asheville...