Fitzmaurice v. Boston, R.B.&L.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 29 May 1926
• Citation: 152 N.E. 239,256 Mass. 217
• Parties: FITZMAURICE v. BOSTON, R. B. & L. R. CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

256 Mass. 217

152 N.E. 239

FITZMAURICE

v.BOSTON, R. B. & L. R. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 29, 1926.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; J. H. Quinn, Judge.

Action of tort by James H. Fitzmaurice against the Boston, Revere Beach & Lynn Railroad Company to recover for personal injuries caused by derailment of defendant's car. Verdict for defendant, and plaintiff excepts. Exceptions overruled.

Lee M. Friedman, of Boston, for plaintiff.

T. Kelly, of Boston, for defendant.

BRALEY, J.

It was undisputed at the trial that the plaintiff while a passenger on a train of the defendant and in the exercise of due care suffered personal injuries from a derailment of the car caused by the breaking of an axle. The plaintiff asked the trial judge to rule as follows:

‘4. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies to this case. It applies in the case of an unexplained accident which in the ordinary experience of mankind would not have happened without fault on the part of the defendant.’

‘8. The plaintiff having shown the derailing of the car, this fact until explained by the defendant, was evidence of negligence which the jury could find in the ordinary course of affairs would not have happened if proper precautions had been taken.

‘9. The entire management of track and equipment was in the control of the defendant. If the plaintiff shows that the car in which he was a passenger left the track the jury might well find from common experience if nothing further appears, that if neither the car nor the track was defective it would not have been derailed and therefore the defendant was guilty of negligence.’

‘11. If the axle of the railroad car in which the plaintiff was being transported as a passenger by the defendant broke, causing the car to be derailed, as the train was going along in the ordinary way, and the plaintiff was injured, it makes out a prima facie case for the plaintiff. The injury under such circumstances would imply negligence of the defendant. It would be inferred from these facts that the car was not properly fitted and provided with suitable and safe axles. The presumption of law standing alone with such facts proven is such that it would support an inference of negligence unless the defendant by going forward with evidence offers what the jury may find an adequate or satisfactory explanation of the accident arising from causes other than from its own want of care.’

The requests were denied, and, a verdict having been returned for the defendant, we are asked to order a new trial, because of the denial, and for error in a portion of the charge to the jury.

[1][2][3] It is settled, that in an action between a passenger and common carrier for injuries received during transportation, if from common experience the accident would not have happened unless there was a...