Black v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 18 May 1910 |
| Citation | 206 Mass. 80,91 N.E. 891 |
| Parties | BLACK v. BOSTON ELEVATED RY. CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Coakley & Sherman, R. H. Sherman, and W. M. Hurd, for plaintiff.
F. W Fosdick and E. A. Counihan, Jr., for defendant.
The plaintiff testified that she was standing up with her hand through the loop of 'the strap,' and her thumb on the outside; that she had hold of the strap 'firmly,' and that 'the strap was wrenched right out of my hand' by the car's stopping 'very suddenly,' more suddenly than she ever had seen a car stop, although she had been in the habit of riding on electric cars 'for a long while' before the accident. She also testified that 'a number of other people' standing in the car near her were thrown forward and back again by the sudden stop. This evidence, if believed, showed that the stop here in question was not of the kind incident to travel on an electric car, and the case comes within Lacour v Springfield Street Railway, 200 Mass. 34, 85 N.E. 868 and Cutts v. Boston Elevated Railway, 202 Mass. 450, 89 N.E. 21, and not within McGann v. Boston Elevated Railway, 199 Mass. 446, 85 N.E. 570, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 506, 127, Am. St. Rep. 509, and Stevens v. Boston Elevated Railway, 199 Mass. 472, 85 N.E. 571.
This has not been seriously questioned by the defendant. The contention put forward by it is that in a case like that now before us a plaintiff does not go far enough with his proof to make out a prima facie case of negligence in the stopping of the car unless he goes farther and introduces evidence to show that the sudden stop was not made to avoid a collision; and it relies on what was said by Lathrop, J., in Timms v. Old Colony St. Ry., 183 Mass. 193, 66 N.E. 797, in support of this contention. But that point was not decided in Timms v. Old Colony Street Ry. The stop there in question was of the kind which is incident to travel on electric cars. See, in this connection, Magee v. New York, New Haven & Hartford R. R., 195 Mass. 111, 113, 80 N.E. 689; Partelow v. Newton & Boston St. Ry., 196 Mass. 24, 31, 81 N.E. 894; McGann v. Boston Elevated Ry., 199 Mass. 446, 448, 449, 85 N.E. 570, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 506, 127 Am. St. Rep. 509; Stevens v. Boston Elevated Ry., 199 Mass. 471, 475, 85 N.E. 571.
It is not necessary to decide the point in the case at bar. In the case at bar the plaintiff did go farther. She testified that she did...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cantara v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Authority
...plaintiff does not have such a burden, however, when the vehicle is stopping to allow passengers to alight. Black v. Boston Elev. Ry., 206 Mass. 80, 81--82, 91 N.E. 891 (1910). But see Cuddyer v. Boston Elev. Ry., supra, 314 Mass. at 682, 51 N.E.2d 244. In any event, the plaintiff here test......
-
Cuddyer v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co.
...by traffic conditions, it was held that a finding for the plaintiff was not warranted. It is true that in Black v. Boston Elevated R. Co., 206 Mass. 80, 81, 82, 91 N.E. 891, 892, the question was left open whether a passenger in a street car, after proving a sudden, unusual and violent stop......
-
Cuddyer v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co.
... ... the sudden and violent stop of a taxicab in which he was ... riding. In the absence of evidence that the stop was not ... required by traffic conditions, it was held that a finding ... for the plaintiff was not warranted ... It is true that in ... Black v. Boston Elevated Railway, 206 Mass. 80 , 81, ... 82, the question was left open whether a passenger in a ... street car, after proving a sudden, unusual and violent stop, ... must go on to prove that the stop was not made necessary by ... traffic conditions. There was evidence in that case ... ...
-
Phinney v. Eastern Massachusetts St. Ry. Co.
...characterization by the plaintiff of the firmness of her hold on the car seats as she walked up the aisle. Compare Black v. Boston Elevated Railway, 206 Mass. 80, 91 N. E. 891;Work v. Boston Elevated Railway, 207 Mass. 447, 93 N. E. 693;McCarthy v. Boston Elevated Railway, 207 Mass. 551, 93......