Bigelow v. West End St. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 18 May 1894
• Citation: Bigelow v. West End St. R. Co., 161 Mass. 393, 37 N.E. 367 (Mass. 1894)
• Parties: BIGELOW v. WEST END ST. RY. CO.
• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

161 Mass. 393

37 N.E. 367

BIGELOW v. WEST END ST. RY. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 18, 1894

COUNSEL

Hesseltine & Hesseltine, for plaintiff.

M.F Dickinson, Jr., for defendant.

OPINION

LATHROP, J.

This is an action for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff while leaving an open electric car of the defendant on Charles street, in Boston, near Chestnut street, between 9 and 10 o'clock in the morning of July 14, 1892. Charles street runs north and south, and is crossed at right angles by Mt. Vernon street, Chestnut street, and Beacon street,--the first street named being north of Chestnut street; and the last, south of it. The car was going in a southerly direction. The seats in the car ran across it, and the plaintiff, before she attempted to leave the car, sat on the westerly side of the car, about the third seat from the front. The street pavement had been removed by the city of Boston, on the westerly side of the track, all of the way from Mt. Vernon street to Beacon street, with the exception of the crossing at Chestnut street, and in front of the door of a stable near Beacon street. The new roadbed had been partially completed,--that is, the foundation of it consisting of rubble and cement, with sand on top, had been laid,--but the paving blocks, which are about six inches in depth, had not been laid. There are two car tracks on Charles street, and the pavement between the westerly rail and the easterly side of the street was in place. On getting near to Chestnut street, which was a regular stopping place, the plaintiff motioned to the conductor to stop the car. He gave a signal, accordingly, to the motorman; and the car was slowed up gradually, and was stopped with its rear platform some feet over the crossing of Chestnut street, and opposite the excavation. The plaintiff testified that she had a parcel of sulky seats, which she put under her left arm, took her lunch bag in her left hand, and took hold of the handle of the seat on which she had been sitting with her right hand, glanced round to see if there were any carriages coming, and stepped off, but did not look to see where she was stepping; that there was nothing to prevent her seeing the excavation, if she had looked; that she put her right foot on to the running board, and her left foot towards the ground, and fell on her left side. She also testified that she did not know that the excavation was there, and that she knew that the car could not stop on an intersecting street. A regulation of the board of aldermen of the city of Boston was put in evidence, which provides as follows: "No person having the control of the speed of a street-railway car shall stop any such car on a cross walk or in front of an intersecting street except to avoid collisions or to prevent danger to persons in the street."

At the close of the evidence...