Cassady v. Old Colony St. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 03 September 1903 |
| Citation | 184 Mass. 156,68 N.E. 10 |
| Parties | CASSADY v. OLD COLONY ST. RY. CO. (two cases). |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Geo R. Swasey and Thos. H. Buttimer, for plaintiff.
Henry F. Hurlburt and Damon E. Hall, for defendant.
The first ground of defense is that there was no evidence of negligence of the defendant. It is conceded that the fuse burned out, but the defendant contends that the burning out of a fuse is not negligence per se, nor does it import negligence. The box containing the fuse was fastened to the sill of the open car, at a place directly underneath the portion of the seat upon which Mrs. Cassady was sitting. A fuse consists of a piece of metallic alloy, similar in nature to soft solder, one or more inches in length, connected at each end with a small circular piece of copper. These pieces of copper are called the 'terminals,' and they are so cut that they can easily be slipped under the thumb screws and clamped in place. The fuse and thumb screws are held in what is called the 'fuse box.' A wire leading from one thumb screw up through the roof of the car to the trolley wire conducts the electricity from the trolley wire to the box. From the other thumb screw there is a wire leading to the motors. When the two screws are connected by the fuse, there is a direct path for the electricity from the trolley wire to the motors. The purpose in using the fuse is to protect the wiring and the motors from an excessive current of electricity. It is constructed to withstand something less than the maximum current which the wires and motors are capable of carrying. When the current of electricity exceeds the maximum strength of the fuse, the metallic alloy melts with more or less of a report and flame and, the electrical path between the trolley wire and motors being thereby broken, the wire and motor are saved from possible harm. As the safety valve in a locomotive engine allows the escape of steam when the pressure is too strong for safety or for the ordinary operation of the engine, so in electric cars the fuse is used to prevent the electrical mechanism from injury which might otherwise arise from the variations in the electrical current, which are practically unavoidable in the operation of the trolley cars.
A fuse of the character above described is in general use upon cars run by electrical power. It is a safety device, and the evidence in this case shows that, in view of the rapid action of electricity, the practical difficulty of controlling it at all times, the inability of the motorman to ascertain the amount of power upon the wires or on the motors, the variable weight of the load to be carried, the reasonably necessary conditions of the traffic as to weight of machinery and cost of transportation, it is a proper device. It is intended to prevent harm to the machinery which otherwise might result from the practically unavoidable fluctuations of the power. The fuse is expected to burn out when, for any cause, the electrical current exceeds its carrying capactiy; and the evidence of the experts in this case shows that in the ordinary operation of cars properly wired and equipped such an event is liable often to happen without negligence upon the part of any one. When, therefore, a fuse burns out, it cannot be said that the connection between the occurrence and negligence is such as, in the absence of other evidence, to justify the conclusion that the result was due to negligence. As well might it be said that the escape of steam from the safety valve of a locomotive engine momentarily stopping at a station is evidence of negligence. The ordinary burning out of a fuse, therefore, is not prima facie evidence of negligence; and, if there had been nothing else in this case, the defendant would have been entitled to a verdict.
But the jury may properly have found that there was something else in this case. The expert evidence on both sides showed that the report, flash, and vapor-like puff attendant upon the burning out of a fuse like this when in proper condition are instantaneous and harmless, and no physical injury, either by burning or by an electrical shock, could be expected to result therefrom. The evidence for the plaintiff tended however, to show something more than a mere instantaneous, harmless flash. Upon this Mrs. Cassady testified as follows: 'I was sitting on the car, and all at once a large flame of fire, or a blaze, came all over me, and I sprang off my seat, and started to go out of the car on the other side of the car, and a lady prevented me, and pushed me back, and that's the last I remember until about three weeks afterwards, when I found myself in bed.' Her daughter, who was seated a few seats in the rear of the one upon which her mother sat, testified that she She could not tell how long it lasted, but it was long enough for her 'to see it plainly come in the car and flash right over' her mother. 'The flame only partly enveloped' the person of her mother. 'I should say it came over half of her face and body.' Again, she says, 'As the car started up the hill, there was this flash and flame.' 'I saw this flash and flame come up around or near my mother.' Henry O. Rideout, a witness called by the plaintiff, testified that at the time of the accident he was driving a two-seated carryall, and that he 'saw a flame and smoke come out of the car ahead.' He continued: Henry A. Rideout, another witness called by the plaintiff, testified that he was the father of the preceding witness, and at the time of the accident was driving in a team ahead of...
To continue reading
Request your trial