Conway v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 27 May 1926 |
| Citation | 255 Mass. 571,152 N.E. 94 |
| Parties | CONWAY v. BOSTON ELEVATED RY. CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Report from Superior Court, Suffolk County; A. R. Weed, Judge.
Action of tort by Agnes Conway per prochein ami against the Boston Elevated Railway Company to recover for personal injuries, where, as a passenger, she was ascending on an escalator operated by defendant. Verdict was directed for defendant, and case was reported. Judgment on verdict.
P. F. Spain, of Boston, for plaintiff.
L. Powers, of Boston, for defendant.
This is an action to recover for personal injuries received by the plaintiff (a child between six and seven years of age) while accompanied by her parents, and as a passenger of the defendant, she was ascending from the street level of its Egleston Square Station, in Boston, to the train platform, upon an escalator operated by the defendant.
She testified that just as she reached the top of the escalator her left hand became caught in the moving belt which she had hold of, and as the belt moved around the curve at the top, her fingers were caught between the belt and the wood underneath and her hand was drawn down into the slot; that she tried to pull her fingers out but was unable to do so. The plaintiff's father testified that he did not see the accident, but examined the escalator within five minutes afterwards; that it was equipped with a moving leather handrail which runs along with the stairs, and when it reaches the top, curves around an elbow and then goes down into a slot in the floor; that the slot was about two and a half or three inches wide and that the rail was about one inch and a half wide; that he noticed as the belt passed around the curve it ‘kind of flapped; kind of rattled; * * * it gave a kind of a wave; * * * it kind of jumped a little bit; * * * it flopped; * * * was loose.’ The foregoing is the substance of all the material evidence.
If it be assumed that the plaintiff could have been found to have been in the exercise of due care, the question remains whether there was any evidence to warrant a finding of negligence on the part of the defendant. It is not and could not properly be contended by the plaintiff that the installation of the escalator by the defendant for the use and convenience of its passengers was in itself evidence of negligence. But it is contended by her that the moving handrail was loose and ‘flapped’ and ‘rattled’ and made a ‘slapping’ noise as it rounded the curve, and that the space between it and the wood underneath was about three inches long and half an inch wide. There was no evidence in the present case of any want of repair or care of the belt. It does not appear that it had become worn or had stretched by use. There is no direct evidence that it was unsuitable for the purpose for which it was used. But it is contended by the plaintiff it could be inferred that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hesemann v. May Dept. Stores Co.
...this case, and no recovery should be allowed plaintiff on that theory. Fuller v. Wurzburg Dry Goods Co., 158 N.W. 1026; Conway v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co., 152 N.E. 94; Russell v. St. Louis & S.F.R. Co., 245 S.W. l.c. 591. (2) The facts in this case do not imply negligence on the part of the......
-
May Department Stores Co. v. Bell
...the maxim, however, has not been applied. Fuller v. Wurzburg Dry Goods Co., 192 Mich. 447, 158 N. W. 1026; Conway v. Boston Elevated R. Co., 255 Mass. 571, 152 N. E. 94. In the Michigan case, the plaintiff claimed that she was thrown down and injured by a peculiar motion of the escalator. T......
-
Hesemann v. May Dept. Stores Co.
... ... Fuller v ... Wurzburg Dry Goods Co., 158 N.W. 1026; Conway v ... Boston Elevated Ry. Co., 152 N.E. 94; Russell v. St ... Louis & S. F. R. Co., 245 S.W ... ...
-
Knych v. Trustees of New York, N.H. & H.R. Co.
... ... The train had ... come from Portland, Maine, and had been operated by the ... Boston and Maine Railroad as far as Worcester in this ... Commonwealth, where it was taken over by the ... [320 Mass. 342] ... another at the point of contact. Adduci v. Boston ... Elevated Railway, 215 Mass. 336. Perkins v. Bay ... State Street Railway, 223 Mass. 235 ... Coleman v ... 3; Mulry v ... Boston Elevated Railway, 278 Mass. 210; Conway v ... Boston Elevated Railway, 255 Mass. 571 ... See Oliver ... v. New York Central Railroad, 273 ... ...