Callahan v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 23 March 1910 |
| Citation | 205 Mass. 422,91 N.E. 388 |
| Parties | CALLAHAN v. BOSTON ELEVATED RY. CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
R. W. Frost and J. W. McCormack, for plaintiff.
Fletcher Ranney and W. E. Monk, for defendant.
The plaintiff was driving a heavy wagon after dark upon a broad street in the town of Brookline. The portion of the way outside the tracks of the defendant company was covered with ice and snow, and the footing for his horses which were not sharp, 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 of the defendant going in the same direction ran into him and caused the injuries, for which this action is brought. A street railway company, by reason of the grant to it of a location for its tracks in a highway, gains no right to the exclusive enjoyment of that portion where its rails are laid. The rest of the traveling public may also go upon it, provided there is no unreasonable interference with the progress of the cars of the street railway. The fact that street cars can only proceed upon rails gives to them a certain preference in the use of that portion of the way. Others must respect the limitations under which travelers in street cars labor as to their inability to turn out, by not unduly obstructing the track. On learning of the approach of a car other travelers upon that part of the way should leave the rails at once if reasonably practicable. But travelers in vehicles are not obliged to be constantly upon the watch to observe the approach of car from behind. They may reasonably assume under ordinary conditions that the driver of the car will exercise common prudence to avoid collision with others exercising their rights as travelers with ordinary care. These principles were early declared and have been constantly adhered to in determining the relative rights of these two kinds of travelers upon highways. Com. v. Temple, 14 Gray, 69; Vincent v. Norton & Taunton St. Ry. Co., 180 Mass. 104, 61 N.E. 822; Sexton v. West Roxbury & Roslindale St. Ry. Co., 188 Mass. 139, 74 N.E. 315; Kerr v. Boston Elevated Ry Co., 188 Mass. 434, 74 N.E. 669; Williamson v. Old Colony St. Ry. Co., 191 Mass. 144-147, 77 N.E. 655, 5 L R. A. (N. S.) 1081; Logan v. Old Colony St. Ry. Co., 190 Mass. 115, 76 N.E. 510; Chaput v. Haverhill Georgetown & Danvers St. Ry. Co., 194 Mass. 218, 80 N.E. 597; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial