Chandler v. Metropolitan Transit Authority
| Decision Date | 03 March 1954 |
| Citation | 117 N.E.2d 823,331 Mass. 190 |
| Parties | CHANDLER v. METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Leo E. Dorfman, Wollaston, for plaintiff.
Philip A. Brine, Jr., Boston, for defendant.
Before QUA, C. J., and LUMMUS, RONAN, WILKINS and WILLIAMS, JJ.
The plaintiff appealed from a decision of the Appellate Division vacating a finding in his favor by the trial judge for damage to his automobile when it was struck by the overswing of the defendant's street car as it proceeded onto a curve from Beach Street to Ocean Avenue in Revere on the evening of May 5, 1951.
The plaintiff's son was operating the automobile for his own personal pleasure with the plaintiff's permission. The son, as he drove easterly along Beach Street, observed that the street car was stopped at the intersection of Ocean Avenue which runs in a general northerly and southerly direction; that two automobiles had stopped on Beach Street at the intersection of Ocean Avenue; and that these two automobiles had stopped parallel to and abreast of the street car and abreast of each other. The plaintiff's son drove past the rear end of the street car, stopping with the front of the automobile at the middle of the right side of the street car and behind the automobile which had already stopped in front of him. Another automobile had stopped to the right of the plaintiff's automobile. The street car started to proceed to its left onto Ocean Avenue before there was any movement of the first two automobiles or the plaintiff's automobile. The right rear end of the car swung out, striking and damaging the left side of plaintiff's automobile.
The judge considered the case to be governed by Bryant v. Boston Elevated Railway, 212 Mass. 62, 98 N.E. 587, 40 L.R.A.,N.S., 133, and impliedly found that the motorman was negligent and found for the plaintiff. Both parties considered the plaintiff's son the bailee of the automobile, and the only question presented is whether or not the motorman was negligent.
The motorman and the operator of the automobile were both using a public way, and each owed the duty of exercising due care to avoid injury to the other. The movement of the street car was more limited than that of the automobile as it could run only along the rails. A motorman ordinarily must be cognizant of the presence of pedestrians and vehicles abreast of or in the path of the car, and he must exercise reasonable care to avoid injury or damage to them. Anderson v. Old Colony Street Railway, 214 Mass. 505, 101 N.E. 1072; Diamato v. Eastern Massachusetts Street Railway, 296 Mass. 476, 6 N.E.2d 391. He must be alert to the rapidly changing traffic conditions as he proceeds along the highway. He can hardly be expected to anticipate that a traveller will leave a place of safety, approach the car from the rear, and walk into the side of the car or travel so close to the rear as to be struck by the overswing as the car is proceeding along a curve. Widmer v. West End Street Railway, 158 Mass. 49, 32 N.E. 899; Kiley v. Boston Elevated Railway, 207 Mass. 542, 93 N.E. 632, 31 L.R.A.,N.S., 1153; Brightman v. Union Street Railway, 216 Mass. 152, 103 N.E. 379; Osborne v. Bay State Street Railway, 222 Mass. 427, 111 N.E. 43; Fairbanks v. Boston Elevated Railway, 237 Mass. 127, 129 N.E. 367; Noonan v. Boston Elevated Railway, 263 Mass. 305, 160 N.E. 811. But a motorman who knows or should know that there are vehicles or...
To continue reading
Request your trial