Freedman v. Eastern Massachusetts St. Ry. Co.

Decision Date01 February 1938
PartiesFREEDMAN v. EASTERN MASSACHUSETTS STREET RY. CO. SAME v. FALL RIVER GAS WORKS CO.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Exceptions from Superior Court, Bristol County; Walsh, Judge.

Actions of tort by Sadie Freedman against the Eastern Massachusetts Street Railway Company and by Sadie Freedman against the Fall River Gas Works Company for personal injuries allegedly sustained as a result of a collision of a street car of the defendant street railway company with a motortruck owned by the defendant gas works company. Verdict was directed for the defendant in each case, and the plaintiff brings exceptions.

Exceptions sustained.

M. Entin, of Fall River, for plaintiff.

A. E. Seagrave, of Fall River, for defendant Eastern Massachusetts Street Ry. Co.

H. S. R. Buffinton and R. C. Westgate, both of Fall River, for defendant Fall River Gas Works Co.

DOLAN, Justice.

These are two actions of tort brought by the plaintiff for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained as a result of a collision of a street car of the defendant street railway company with a motortruck owned by the defendant gas works company. The cases were tried together to a jury. The trial judge directed a verdict for the defendant in each case.

In its aspect most favorable to the plaintiff the evidence may be summarized as follows: On October 22, 1934, the plaintiff was a passenger in the car of the defendant street railway company which was operated by an employee. The car was going north on North Main Street in the city of Fall River. The truck of the defendant gas works company was parked on the right side of the car ‘beside the curbing.’ The operator of the car, as he approached, saw the truck ‘pretty close to the curbing.’ The car stopped in contact with the corner of the truck. The truck driver tried to go by the car but could not get by. Then the operator of the car tried to proceed but could not. Then they both tried to go together but could not, and the truck came in contact with the side of the car breaking the window opposite the seat behind that in which the plaintiff was seated. When the plaintiff heard the window break she jumped from her seat and twisted her shoulder. She was ‘scared and nervous.’ She felt pains in her right shoulder and neck but left the car and walked home. She telephoned to a doctor and on his advice placed and electric pad on her right shoulder and neck and went to bed. The next day she felt pain from the back of her head through her shoulder and arm. The plaintiff testified that she received medical treatments, and that she had never been nervous before the accident and was badly frightened when it took place. Each of the defendants contends that there was no evidence of negligence on its part. We are of opinion, however, that there was evidence for the jury in each case of the defendant's negligence, and that this issue should have been submitted to them with proper instructions. The instant cases are distinguishable in the facts from Stangy v. Boston Elevated Railway Co., 220 Mass. 414, 107 N.E. 933.

The second contention of the defendants is that the plaintiff's injuries were due solely to fear; that she suffered no physical injuries from without to her person; and that she cannot recover under the rule of Spade v. Lynn & Boston Railroad Co., 168 Mass. 285, 47 N.E. 88, 89,38 L.R.A. 512, 60 Am.St.Rep. 393. In that case, 168 Mass. 285, at page 290, 47 N.E. 88, the court said: We remain satisfied with the rule that there can be no recovery for fright, terror, alarm, anxiety, or distress of mind, if these are unaccompanied by some physical injury; and, if this rule is to stand, we think it should also be held that there can be no recovery for such physical injuries as may be caused solely by such mental disturbance, where there is no injury to the person from without.’ We are of opinion that the principle just quoted is inapplicable to the facts in the case at bar. That principle has to do with the internal results of the operation of such disturbances as are described in the rule, where the injury is not directly caused by the defendant's negligence, but is caused solely by the effect of those disturbances upon the mind and body of the plaintiff. Correctly interpreted, a physical injury ‘from without’ for which recovery may be had is one not solely the result of ‘fright, terror, alarm, anxiety, or distress of mind.’ There ‘can be no recovery for sickness due to the purely internal operation of fright caused by a negligent act,’ Smith v. Postal Telegraph Cable Co., 174 Mass. 576, 578, 55 N.E. 380,47 L.R.A. 323, 75 Am.St.Rep. 374; but the ‘principle of the Spade Case is confined strictly to cases where the connection of the physical illness with the fright is wholly internal.’ Cameron v. New England Telephone &...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Dziokonski v. Babineau
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 30 juin 1978
    ... ... Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts", Worcester ... Argued Dec. 8, 1977 ... Decided June 30, 1978 ... Page 1296 ...      \xC2" ... Freedman v. Eastern Mass. St. Ry., 299 Mass. 246, 250, 12 N.E.2d 739 (1938) (plaintiff's shoulder injured ... ...
  • Cimino v. Milford Keg, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 23 février 1982
    ... ... The MILFORD KEG, INC ... Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester ... Argued Oct. 8, 1981 ... Decided Feb. 23, 1982 ...         [385 Mass. 324] ... See Dziokonski, supra at 559, 38 N.E.2d 1295 (cases collected). See also Freedman v. Eastern Mass. St. [385 Mass. 334] Ry., 299 Mass. 246, 12 N.E.2d 739 (1938), which appears to be ... ...
  • Hopper v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Colorado
    • 30 juillet 1965
    ... ... expounded in the nineteenth century decision of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in Spade v. Lynn & Boston R. R. Co., 168 Mass. 285, 47 N.E. 88, 38 L.R.A. 512 (1897). This was a ...         2 Christy Bros. Circus v. Turnage, 38 Ga.App. 581, 144 S.E. 680 (1928); Freedman v. Eastern Mass. St. R. Co., 299 Mass. 246, 12 N.E.2d 739 (1938); Morton v. Stack, 122 Ohio St ... ...
  • Danner v. Arnsberg
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • 14 juin 1961
    ... ... 231, 177 N.E. 431, 76 A.L.R. 676; Block v. Pascucci, 111 Conn. 58, 149 A. 210; Freedman v. Eastern Mass. St. Ry. Co., 299 Mass. 246, 12 N.E.2d 739; Kennell v. Gershonovitz Bros., 84 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT