Coy v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 18 June 1912
• Citation: 212 Mass. 307,98 N.E. 1041
• Parties: COY v. BOSTON ELEVATED RY. CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

212 Mass. 307

98 N.E. 1041

COY v. BOSTON ELEVATED RY. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

June 18, 1912

COUNSEL

Wm. P. Meehan, Chas H. Donahue, and Wm. T. Atwood, all of Boston, for plaintiff.

John T Hughes, of Boston, for defendant.

OPINION

MORTON J.

This is an action of tort to recover for personal injuries received by the plaintiff on June 5, 1905, while a passenger on one of the defendant's cars. At the close of the evidence the presiding judge directed a verdict for the defendant, and by agreement reported the case 'upon all the evidence that has been properly admitted, and such other evidence, if any as has been offered and not admitted which should have been admitted, and no other.' If a verdict should not have been directed for the defendant judgment is to be entered for the plaintiff for nineteen hundred dollars; otherwise judgment is to be entered on the verdict for the defendant.

We think that the plaintiff is entitled to judgment. On the day of the accident the plaintiff took a surface car at the corner of Savin and Warren streets, Roxbury, for the elevated station at Dudley street on his way to his place of business on Haverhill street, Boston. The seats of the car were all full and there was no room on the right-hand running board and he took a place on the left-hand running board and remained there till the accident. Other passengers also got onto the left-hand running board. The plaintiff stood between the second and third seats from the rear, holding onto a stanchion, and while in that position paid his fare to the conductor. As the car was going round the loop at the top of the incline which led up to the Dudley street station 'passengers began to make a rush for the left-hand running board and across the tracks up the steps to the train of the Elevated. There were six or eight made the dive all at once in front of the witness and one who was in the rear of the witness, practically in the rear, as the witness stood at the second seat from the rear, came against him with such force that it broke his hold on the stanchion and he was thrown clear over to the opposite track, striking on his left shoulder and left hip.' This was the plaintiff's account of the way in which and the circumstances under under which the accident happened. Testimony from other witnesses tended to show that it was the practice for passengers to leave the car hastily at or near the point where the accident occurred and cross the tracks to catch the Elevated train that might be standing at the station. They did this instead of waiting for the car to come to a stop at the station a little farther on. The manner of leaving the car was described by different witnesses as 'hurriedly,' 'with degrees of violence and jostling,' 'more or less of a rush.' One witness testified that 'he had seen passengers jump from the running rail [board] to the track and cross over to the Elevated trains; that the passengers so jumping moved very quickly.' Another witness testified that 'he had seen passengers at that point jump off; that the witness had seen them coming in contact with people in doing that, and had seen them shove. This witness on cross-examination said that it 'made no difference whether anyone was standing on the running board. They brushed right by them and rushed over them as though they didn't have a minute to live.' The estimates in regard to the number of passengers jumping off varied from four to six or eight or ten according to the more or less crowded condition of the car. As to the frequency with which the jumping off occurred, one witness said that it took place 'five times out of six'; another, that 'hardly a...