Fagan v. Rhode Island Co.
Decision Date | 15 March 1905 |
Citation | 27 R.I. 51,60 A. 672 |
Parties | FAGAN v. RHODE ISLAND CO. |
Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Action by Margaret Fagan against the Rhode Island Company. Heard on petition of defendant for a new trial, and Judgment rendered for defendant.
Argued before DOUGLAS, C. J., and DUBOIS, J.
David S. Baker and Lewis A. Waterman, for plaintiff. Henry W. Hayes, Frank T. Easton, Lefferts S. Hoffman, and Alonzo R. Williams, for defendant.
The plaintiff in this action has recovered a verdict for $1,130 for the loss of services of her minor son, who was injured while a passenger upon one of the defendant's electric cars upon the i road between Providence and Riverside. The defendant brings its petition for a new trial on the grounds that the verdict is against the evidence on the issue of the defendant's negligence and in the award of excessive damages, and that the presiding justice erred in admitting certain evidence against the defendant's objection. The plaintiff's son, a boy about 14 years of age, was riding in a closed car of the defendant corporation upon a country road about midnight on the night of September 8, 1903, on the way to Riverside. The track on which the car ran was located at the extreme westerly side of the road, outside of the ordinarily traveled way. The moon was shining, but its light upon the track was obstructed by overshadowing trees alongside the road. Shortly before the collision the motorman turned off the power and rang his gong, and immediately before the collision occurred he applied his brake and attempted to put sand upon the track. Almost instantly after the brakes were set the car struck a team of horses and came to a stop, with one horse under the front of the car and another lying dead in the road. The plaintiff's son, who was sitting in the front corner of the car with his head resting on his arm supported by the window ledge and sleeping, was thrown to the floor by the shock and injured. These are all the facts pertinent to the case which were known to any person in the car except the motorman. The conductor was standing inside the door, figuring his day card. One passenger says he got a glimpse of the team just before it was struck, and describes the situation after the collision; but he gives no information as to the cause of the accident. He says the gong was rung. Another passenger says: "The car stopped quite suddenly, and I heard the glass breaking and the woodwork was all splintered up; so I knew there was something the matter." The motorman's story is: That, proceeding at an ordinary rate of speed, he saw at some distance ahead, but in the traveled part of the road, a dark object, which soon appeared to be a pair of horses followed by a covered wagon. At this time he turned off the power and rang his gong, but saw no occasion to apply the brake, as the wagon and horses were clear of the track. That suddenly, when close to the car, the team turned in upon the track, and he at once used every means to stop, but without success. The car and the horses came together, and the horses were thrown down and the wagon overturned. He testifies as follows: The driver of the wagon testifies that he had boon distributing bread in Bristol, having started from Providence at 5 o'clock in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Zichler v. St. Louis Public Service Co.
... ... Railroad Co., 137 Mich. 231, 100 N.W ... 395; Riggsby v. Tritton, 129 S.E. 493; Fagan v ... Rhode Island Co., 27 R. I. 51, 60 A. 472; Hawkins v ... Railroad Co., 3 Wash. 592, 28 ... ...
-
Motte v. First Nat. Stores
...Valley St. Ry. Co., 25 R.I. 209, 55 A. 491; Reynolds v. Narragansett Electric Lighting Co., 26 R.I. 457, 59 A. 393; Fagan v. Rhode Island Co., 27 R.I. 51, 54, 60 A. 672; Wilbur v. Rhode Island Co., 27 R.I. 205, 207, 61 A. 601; Himes v. Cole Teaming Co., 39 R.I. 504, 98 A. 897. Considering t......
-
Plumb v. Richmond Light & R. Co.
...Transit Co., 227 Pa. 319, 76 Atl. 17;Chicago City Ry. Co. v. Rood, 163 Ill. 477, 45 N. E. 238,54 Am. St. Rep. 478;Fagan v. Rhode Island Co., 27 R. I. 51, 60 Atl. 672;Hawkins v. Front St. Cable Ry. Co., 3 Wash. 592, 28 Pac. 1021,16 L. R. A. 808, 28 Am. St. Rep. 72. See, also, Paterson v. Phi......
-
McFadden v. Metropolitan Street Railway Company
...N.E. 238; Black v. Railroad, 187 Mass. 172, 72 N.E. 970; Potts v. Railroad, 33 F. 610; Lohner v. Railroad, 116 Ill.App. 365; Fagan v. Rhode Island Co., 60 A. 672; Railroad v. Gibson, 96 Pa. St. 83; 3 Negligence, 2756; Cleveland v. Osborn, 63 N.E. 604; Hamilton v. Railroad, 114 Mo.App. 508; ......