Craft v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 01 March 1912 |
| Citation | 97 N.E. 610,211 Mass. 374 |
| Parties | CRAFT v. BOSTON ELEVATED RY. CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
A. E Yont, for plaintiff.
MacPherson & Mahar, for defendant.
The only question is whether there was evidence of the negligence of the defendant. At the time of the accident the plaintiff was entering the car by the right hand door which was at the forward end of the car. The door is 46 inches in width and the aperture is divided in the middle by a perpendicular rod. The door in closing passes outside this rod, leaving a space of about 3 inches. 'The rod is apparently designed as a handhold to steady passengers when entering or alighting from the car, and to separate outgoing and incoming passengers.' The plaintiff's evidence, which is not contradicted, was that the car was pretty well filled, she being the last passenger to enter at this door, all the seats being occupied, 'and there were a few people standing in the aisle.' She was passing to the left of the rod previously mentioned when suddenly, without warning, the door started to close and struck her, pinning her body against this rod. The door starts to close slowly and increases its speed as it acquires momentum. Her head, one shoulder, part of her body and one leg were on the inside, the other shoulder, leg and part of her body being held outside the door. She struggled to free herself and was assisted by passengers to a seat, and did not then or at any other time see the conductor, and had no communication with any employé of the defendant. She saw the motorman inclosed within his cab, his back being turned toward her.
There was testimony to the effect that it is possible for a passenger to operate the door by the levers in the rear.
The car was standing for the reception of passengers and in attempting to enter the car at the place and at that time the plaintiff had so far entered the car that the defendant owed to her the duty of a common carrier to a passenger. The car the door and all the levers for moving them were under the exclusive care and control of the defendant. The closing of the door under the circumstances was evidence of negligence and since the door was under the care of the defendant and since there was absolutely no explanation of the cause for the movement of the door, the negligence was prima facie that of the defendant. And that is so even if some passenger...
To continue reading
Request your trial