Callahan v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co.

Citation205 Mass. 422,91 N.E. 388
PartiesCALLAHAN v. BOSTON ELEVATED RY. CO.
Decision Date23 March 1910
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

205 Mass. 422
91 N.E. 388

CALLAHAN
v.
BOSTON ELEVATED RY. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

March 23, 1910.


Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Robert F. Raymond, Judge.

Action by John F. Callahan against the Boston Elevated Railway Company for damages received in collision with a car. There was a directed verdict for defendant, and plaintiff excepts. Exceptions sustained.

1. STREET RAILROADS (s 85*)-OPERATION OF CARS-RIGHTS IN HIGHWAY.

A street railway company is not entitled to the exclusive enjoyment of a portion of the highway where its rails are liad, but the rest of the traveling public may also go on it without unreasonably interfering with its cars, though the latter are entitled to a certain preference by reason of their inability to turn out.

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Street Railroads, Cent. Dig. ss 193, 195; Dec. Dig. s 85.*]

* For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Reporter Indexes

2. STREET RAILROADS (s 85*)-OPERATION OF CARS-RIGHTS IN HIGHWAY.

On learning of the approach of a car, other travelers should leave the rails at once if reasonably practicable; but travelers in vehicles need not be constantly watching for the approach of a car from behind, and may reasonably assume under ordinary conditions that its driver will exercise common prudence to avoid a collision with others, exercising their rights as travelers with ordinary care.

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Street Railroads, Cent. Dig. ss 193, 195; Dec. Dig. s 85.*]

* For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Reporter Indexes

3. STREET RAILROADS (s 117*)-COLLISION WITH CAR-QUESTIONS FOR JURY-NEGLIGENCE-CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.

In an action against a street railway company, it appeared that plaintiff was driving a heavy wagon after dark in a broad street, and that a portion of the way outside the tracks was covered with ice and snow, and the footing for his horses was better between the rails, where there was no ice, and where he had been driving at a walk for about five minutes, when a car going in the same direction ran into him and caused the injuries for which he sued. Held, that plaintiff's due care and defendant's negligence were questions for the jury.

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Street Railroads, Cent. Dig. ss 239-257; Dec. Dig. s 117.*]

* For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Reporter Indexes

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT