O'Callaghan v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 21 May 1924 |
| Citation | 249 Mass. 43,144 N.E. 74 |
| Parties | O'CALLAGHAN v. BOSTON ELEVATED RY. CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Elias B. Bishop, Judge.
Action of tort by Denis O'Callaghan, administrator of the estate of May Canavan, deceased, against the Boston Elevated Railway Company to recover for death of intestate struck by an electric car. Verdict was ordered for defendant, and plaintiff brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.
Street railroads k98(8)-Pedestrian crossing street without looking, guilty of contributory negligence.
Person who walked across street without looking to see electric car, in full view, was guilty of contributory negligence, and there can be no recovery for death, notwithstanding G. L. c. 231, s 85.
D. H. Fulton, of Boston, for plaintiff.
J. P. Carr, of Boston, for defendant.
This action is to recover for the death of the plaintiff's intestate, who was killed about 9 o'clock in the morning on February 27, 1921, by reason of being struck by an electric car operated by the defendant on Beacon street, Somerville. A witness called by the plaintiff, who ‘saw about all there was of the occurrence,’ testified he was standing on Beacon street waiting for an inbound car and saw the plaintiff's intestate ‘coming out of Kent street’ and continuing across Beacon street; that when she stepped from the curb to cross Beacon street the electric car was about 200 feet distant; that when it struck the intestate it was moving on Beacon street at the rate of 25 miles an hour, and went about 200 feet after it struck her. The witness stated he was ‘watching the girl (the plaintiff's intestate) the instant she stepped down off the sidewalk’ and until she was struck, but did not see her look toward the approaching car and so far as he knew she ‘was looking straight ahead.’ There was evidence that no bell was sounded.
From the undisputed facts shown in this case it appears that the plaintiff's intestate walked across the street when the approaching car was in full view, without looking and without taking any precautions for her safety. The evidence of the plaintiff's witness shows that the intestate was not in the exercise of due care. G. L. c. 231, § 85, does not help the plaintiff. The case is governed by Duggan v. Bay State Street Railway, 230 Mass. 370, 119 N. E. 757, L. R. A. 1918E, 680;Pigeon v. Massachusetts Northeastern Street Railway, 230 Mass. 392, 119 N. E....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Loney v. Laramie Auto Co.
...on railroad track without looking for trains; Dunworth v. Ry. Co., 133 F. 307; crossing car track without looking; O'Callaghan v. Ry. Co., (Mass.) 144 N.E. 74; stepping out from behind street car without looking for on another track; Doyle v. Ry. Co., (Mass.) 142 N.E. 693; crossing the stre......
-
Weir v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co.
...N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 82 Conn. 142, 72 A. 727. Compare Doyle v. Boston Elev. Ry. Co., 248 Mass. 89, 142 N.E. 693; O'Callaghan v. Boston Elev. Ry. Co., 249 Mass. 43, 144 N.E. 74; Loyle v. Boston Elev. Ry. Co., 260 Mass. 404, 157 N.E. Any failure of the bell and whistle to sound did not excus......
- Lydon v. Boston Elevated Ry.
-
Murphy v. Boston Elevated Ry.
...a finding that the intestate was not in the exercise of due care. The case falls within the decision in O'Callaghan v. Boston Elevated Railway, 249 Mass. 43, 144 N. E. 74, and Bagnell v. Boston Elevated Railway, 247 Mass. 235, 142 N. E. 63; and Will v. Boston Elevated Railway, 247 Mass. 250......