Gould v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 03 April 1906 |
| Citation | 191 Mass. 396,77 N.E. 712 |
| Parties | GOULD v. BOSTON ELEVATED RY. CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
McManus & McCaig, for plaintiff.
Robert G. Dodge and Sanford H. E. Freund, for defendant.
The plaintiff was a passenger in an open car of the defendant railway. She was injured by the back of the seat in front of her falling on her knee. The fall of the back of the seat was caused by the breaking of the metallic armature (an inch and a quarter thick), by which it was attached to the post on the side of the car. The plaintiff's witnesses testified that after the accident they examined the break, and half of it was bright and the other half was 'rusty,' 'black,' 'dull,' and 'corroded.' In our opinion this evidence warranted a finding that the arm was cracked before the accident. We are also of opinion that if it was cracked, as the testimony indicated, the jury were warranted in finding that the crack would have been seen on inspection. The case of Harnois v. Cutting, 174 Mass. 398, 54 N.E. 842, relied on by the defendant, was the case of a flaw, not a crack.
Judgment on the verdict.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stewart v. George B. Peck Co.
...522; Finn v. Terminal R. Assn. of St. Louis (Mo. App.), 97 S.W.2d 890; Wheeler v. Sawyer, 219 Mass. 103, 106 N.E. 592; Gould v. Ry. Co., 191 Mass. 396, 77 N.E. 712; Hannan v. Wire Co., 193 Mass. 127, 78 N.E. 749; Shavelson v. Marcus, 173 N.E. 596. (c) There was evidence from which the jury ......
-
Stewart v. George B. Peck Co.
...522; Finn v. Terminal R. Assn. of St. Louis (Mo. App.), 97 S.W. (2d) 890; Wheeler v. Sawyer, 219 Mass. 103, 106 N.E. 592; Gould v. Ry. Co., 191 Mass. 396, 77 N.E. 712; Hannan v. Wire Co., 193 Mass. 127, 78 N.E. 749; Shavelson v. Marcus, 173 N.E. 596. (c) There was evidence from which the ju......
-
Solomon v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co.
...before the accident for the defendant in the exercise of proper care to have discovered it and repaired the tread. Gould v. Boston Elevated R. Co., 191 Mass. 396, 77 N. E. 712;Hannan v. American Steel & Wire Co. of New Jersey, 193 Mass. 127, 78 N. E. 749; Shavelson v. Marcus, supra. See, al......
-
Shavelson v. Marcus
...that the defendant, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have seen it and remedied it. It was held in Gould v. Boston Elevated Railway, 191 Mass. 396, 77 N. E. 712, that, where the plaintiff was injured by a seat falling upon her by reason of the breaking of the metallic armature, the......