Dorman v. Worcester Consol. St. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 03 October 1931
• Citation: 177 N.E. 812,277 Mass. 95
• Parties: DORMAN v. WORCESTER CONSOL. ST. RY. CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

277 Mass. 95

177 N.E. 812

DORMAN

v.WORCESTER CONSOL. ST. RY. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

Oct. 3, 1931.

Report from Superior Court, Worcester County; Collins, Judge.

Action by Elizabeth Dorman against the Worcester Consolidated Street Railway Company. Verdict for plaintiff. On report from superior court.

Judgment on verdict for plaintiff.

D. F. Gay, of Worcester, for plaintiff.

S. Seder, S. A. Seder, and S. Lurier, all of Worcester, for defendant.

CROSBY, J.

This is an action of tort to recover for personal injuries received by the plaintiff on February 13, 1928, while a passenger on a motorbus owned and operated by the defendant. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff.

The plaintiff testified that at the time of the accident she was employed cleaning offices; that she worked from 9 p. m. until 5 a. m.; that the day of the accident she left her house about 6:15 p. m. and it was dark at that time; that when she arrived at the place she took the bus it was waiting for her and the door was open; that when she entered it was lighted; that after dropping her fare in the box she started for a seat; that the passageway or aisle was so narrow she had to walk sideways and stoop down; that the bus was on the side of the road and stood in a slanting position, one half of it being on the shoulder of the road and the other half on the granolithic pavement; that as she was going to a seat the operator started the bus and at the same time put out the lights; that it was dark and she could not see where to go; that the bus gave ‘one jump ahead and then backwards again,’ and she was taken off her feet; that she was unable to maintain her balance and did not see anything to seize hold of because of the darkness; that she was thrown down and her shoulder struck on the corner of a seat; and that when she attempted to leave the bus she was unable to raise her hand to take hold of the seat in front of her.

The physical facts as testified to by the plaintiff, that the bus was standing by the side of the road in a slanting position, that the plaintiff had to stoop down and walk sideways to reach a seat, and that the operator put out the lights and started the bus with a ‘jump ahead and then backwards again,’ presented proof of special circumstances which warranted a finding of negligent operation causing the injuries which the plaintiff sustained. Sullivan v. Boston Elevated Railway, 224 Mass. 405, 112 N. E. 1025;McAvoy v. Boston Elevated Railway (Mass.) 175 N. E. 103;McRae v. Boston Elevated Railway (Mass.) 176 N. E. 773.

During the course of the trial a statement in writing, which the plaintiff had admitted she had signed, was introduced in evidence by the defendant. In it the plaintiff described the circumstances substantially as she had previously testified, except that it did not contain any statement that the operator extinguished the lights after she boarded the car, that she had to walk down the aisle sideways because the passage was narrow, and that she had to walk down the aisle stooped, with her knees slightly flexed and body bent, because...