Donahue v. Massachusetts Northeastern Street Railway Co.

• Decision Date: 23 November 1915
• Citation: 222 Mass. 233
• Parties: TIMOTHY D. DONAHUE, JR., v. MASSACHUSETTS NORTHEASTERN STREET RAILWAY COMPANY.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

222 Mass. 233

TIMOTHY D. DONAHUE, JR., v. MASSACHUSETTS NORTHEASTERN STREET RAILWAY COMPANY.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Essex.

November 23, 1915

October 21, 1915.

Present: RUGG, C.

J., LORING, CROSBY PIERCE, & CARROLL, JJ.

Negligence, Street railway.

At the trial of an action of tort for personal injuries received by a boy ten years of age against a street railway company, there was evidence merely that the boy with a companion was walking on the sidewalk by a street in which was a street railway track, the nearer rail of which was three and one half feet from the curb, when he "heard the approach of the car coming about one hundred thirty feet back . . . as he thought, not going very fast," that the boys continued on their way to a point between one hundred sixty and one hundred eighty feet from the last stopping place of the car, and were talking of crossing the street when the plaintiff's hat was blown upon the track and he, thinking that he had time to recover it with safety, ran about four feet from the curb to the middle of the track, where he stopped to pick up his hat and was struck by the car which approached at a speed of twenty miles an hour.

It did not appear that any warning signal of the approach of the car was given, nor that there was any obstruction to the view between the place of the accident and the last stopping place of the car. Held, that the evidence did not warrant a submission of the case to the jury.

TORT for personal injuries received by the plaintiff, a boy ten years of age when he was run into by an electric street car of the defendant. Writ dated July 9, 1913.

In the Superior Court the case was tried before Raymond, J.

At the close of the plaintiff's evidence, the material portions of which are described in the opinion, the judge ordered a verdict for the defendant; and the plaintiff alleged exceptions.

The case was submitted on briefs.

R. E. Burke &amp E.

E. Crawshaw, for the plaintiff.

J. J. Ryan, R.

C. Pingree & J.

T. Fitzgerald, for the defendant.

PIERCE, J Stating the testimony in its aspect most favorable to the plaintiff's contention, the evidence warranted the jury in finding that the defendant maintained a street railway which ran from Newburyport Square along Merrimack Street in Newburyport to Amesbury Square, the running time between the two places being thirty minutes; that between Olive Street and Merrill Street ...