Berry v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co.
| Citation | 74 N.E. 933,188 Mass. 536 |
| Parties | BERRY v. BOSTON ELEVATED RY. CO. |
| Decision Date | 26 June 1905 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
John F. McDonald, for plaintiff.
Eletcher Ranney & Wesley and E. Monk, for defendant.
We are of opinion that the ruling that the plaintiff could not recover was right. The plaintiff was a policeman, who at a quarter past 3 in the morning was called by a conductor of a car in the employ of the defendant. The conductor, at the time he spoke, was standing in the doorway of an old horse car, the only use of which was to afford a shelter for conductors while off duty. One end of the car and the windows were boarded up. The other end had still a platform, in which was a hole that had been there for some time. The policeman was in the street when called by the conductor, who said to the plaintiff, 'Hey, come here, Berry, I have two crooks for you.' The policeman came, and in stepping on the platform put one foot through the hole and sustained the injuries complained of. There were only two messenger boys of the Western Union Telegraph Company, in uniform in the car at the time, who had received permission to wait there until a car started for Boston. The boys were well known to the conductor, and it was apparent from the evidence that the conductor was playing a practical joke on the policeman. While the car was on the premises of the defendant, it seems to us clear that the act of the conductor was not within the scope of his employment, and that the defendant is not liable. The fact that the act was performed on the premises of the defendant was wholly immaterial. Walton v. New York Central Sleeping Car Co., 139 Mass. 556, 2 N.E. 101; Files v Boston & Albany Railroad, 149 Mass. 204, 21 N.E. 311, 14 Am. St. Rep. 411; Bowler v. O'Connell, 162 Mass 319, 38 N.E. 498, 27 L. R. A. 173, 44 Am. St. Rep. 359; Driscoll v. Scanlon, 165 Mass. 348, 43 N.E. 100, 52 Am. St. Rep. 523; Brown v. Jarvis Engineering Co., 166 Mass. 75, 77, 43 N.E. 1118, 32 L. R. A. 605, 55 Am. St. Rep. 382, and cases cited; Brown v. Boston Ice Co., 178 Mass. 108, 59 N.E. 644, 86 Am. St. Rep. 469; Crowley v. Fitchburg & Leominster Street Railway, 185 Mass. 279, 70 N.E. 56.
It is further contended that this case falls within the principle of Learoyd v. Godfrey, 138 Mass. 315, namely, that a police officer is lawfully on the premises of another if he goes there to make an arrest. But the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stewart v. Cary Lumber Co
...that the servants were employed to do." Obertoni v. B. & M. R. R., 186 Mass. 481, 71 N. E. 980, 67 L. R. A. 422. In Berry v. Boston El. Ry., 188 Mass. 536, 74 N. E. 973, referring to the act complained of, the court say: "The boys were well known to the conductor, and it was apparent from t......
-
Whiteaker v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
...Ice Co., 178 Mass. 108; Obertoni v. Railroad, 186 Mass. 481; Sullivan v. Railroad, 115 Ky. 447; Smith v. Railroad, 78 Hun, 524; Berry v. Railroad, 188 Mass. 536; Everingham v. Railroad, 148 Iowa, 662; Railroad v. Robinson, 95 Ark. 39; Grattan v. Suedmeyer, 144 Mo.App. 719; Bowen v. Railroad......
-
Stewart v. Cary Lumber Co.
... ... exemplary damage is the same as in the common-law courts ... Boston Co. v. Fiske, 2 Mason, 119-121, Fed. Cas. No ... Chief ... Justice Marton ... Obertoni v. B. & M. R. R., 186 Mass. 481, 71 N.E ... 980, 67 L. R. A. 422. In Berry v. Boston El. Ry., ... 188 Mass. 536, 74 N.E. 973, referring to the act complained ... of, the ... ...
-
O'Leary v. Fash
...authority in chastising a boy who had broken his employer's ax, in order to prevent repetition of like injury. In Berry v. Boston Elevated Railway, 188 Mass. 536, 74 N. E. 933, the defendant was held not liable for the act of one of its conductors in calling a policeman as a practical joke ......