Adduci v. Boston Elevated R. Co.
| Decision Date | 18 June 1913 |
| Citation | 102 N.E. 315,215 Mass. 336 |
| Parties | ADDUCI v. BOSTON ELEVATED RY. CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
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 A. 1090; Howell v. Union Traction Co., 202 Pa. 338, 51 A. 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 & Sulphur Springs Ry., 120 N.C. 557, 27 S.E. 125.
In the case at bar the plaintiff's evidence does not go far enough to show any failure of duty on the part of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial