Fournier v. Central Taxi Cab
| Decision Date | 31 March 1954 |
| Citation | 118 N.E.2d 767,331 Mass. 248 |
| Parties | FOURNIER v. CENTRAL TAXI CAB, Inc. et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
John F. McAuliffe, George Broomfield, Boston, for plaintiff.
Donald D. Gillis, Wollaston, W. Warren Jump, Boston, for defendants.
Before QUA, C. J., and LUMMUS, RONAN, WILKINS and WILLIAMS, JJ.
The plaintiff brought in a District Court this action of tort against the Central Taxi Cab, Inc., and its servant and driver, Robert E. Gallagher. In response to a telephone call from the plaintiff, Gallagher drove his cab to a place where were waiting the plaintiff, who was totally blind, two men who also were totally blind, a woman who was totally blind, and one Gildea who had only two per cent light perception. The plaintiff, Gildea, and another man got into the rear seat without assistance, while another man got into the front seat. Gallagher led the blind woman to the left side of the cab, and in order to make a place for her, Gallagher asked the plaintiff to leave the rear seat and get into the front seat. The plaintiff and Gildea both got out of the rear seat by the rear door on the right side of the cab. When the plaintiff was reaching for the handle of the front door Gildea accidently closed the rear door which shut on the plaintiff's fingers.
The judge denied rulings requested by the defendants to the effect that Gallagher could not be found negligent, and found for the plaintiff. The Appellate Division vacated that finding and ordered judgment for the defendants. The plaintiff appealed.
The plaintiff asked the judge to take judicial notice of municipal ordinances to the effect that a taxicab operator shall not carry a new passenger until the prior passenger shall have discharged him, and that a taxicab operator shall not drive his cab with more than one passenger in the front seat. We need not consider whether these ordinances apply to the case. Neither a trial judge nor this court can consider such alleged ordinances unless they are put in evidence. Forbes v. Kane, 316 Mass. 207, 210, 55 N.E.2d 220; Gaunt v. Board of Appeals of Methuen, 327 Mass. 380, 381, 99 N.E.2d 60; Dos Santos v. City of Peabody, 327 Mass. 519, 521, 99 N.E.2d 852; Boyle v. Building Inspector of Malden, 327 Mass. 564, 566, 99 N.E.2d 925; Sunderland v. Building Inspector of North Andover, 328 Mass. 638, 641, 105 N.E.2d 471.
The plaintiff, by becoming a passenger for hire in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Easthampton Sav. Bank v. City of Springfield
...a trial judge nor this court can consider such alleged ordinances unless they are put in evidence.” Fournier v. Central Taxi Cab, Inc., 331 Mass. 248, 249, 118 N.E.2d 767 (1954), and cases cited. Nor are local ordinances “an appropriate subject of judicial notice.” Lawrence v. Falzarano, 38......
-
Sheppard v. Zoning Bd. of Appeal of Boston
...before us. See Russell v. New Bedford, 74 Mass.App.Ct. 715, 722, 910 N.E.2d 404 (2009), quoting from Fournier v. Central Taxi Cab, Inc., 331 Mass. 248, 249, 118 N.E.2d 767 (1954) (municipal ordinances and by-laws not subject to judicial notice; “[n]either a trial judge nor this court can co......
-
Warren v. Board of Appeals of Amherst
...a trial judge nor this court can consider such alleged (by-laws) unless they are put in evidence." Fournier v. Central Taxi Cab, Inc., 331 Mass. 248, 249, 118 N.E.2d 767 (1954), and cases cited. Trustees of the Stigmatine Fathers, Inc. v. Secretary of Administration & Fin., 369 Mass. 562, 5......
-
Russell v. City of New Bedford, 08-P-441.
...judge nor this court can consider such alleged ordinances [or by-laws] unless they are put in evidence." Fournier v. Central Taxi Cab, Inc., 331 Mass. 248, 249, 118 N.E.2d 767 (1954), and cases cited. See Trustees of the Stigmatine Fathers, Inc. v. Secretary of Admn. & Fin., 369 Mass. 562, ......