Hannon v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 08 January 1903
• Citation: 182 Mass. 425,65 N.E. 809
• Parties: HANNON v. BOSTON ELEVATED RY. CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

182 Mass. 425

65 N.E. 809

HANNON v. BOSTON ELEVATED RY. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

January 8, 1903

COUNSEL

Alfred S. Hayes, for plaintiff.

E. P Saltonstall, for defendant.

OPINION

KNOWLTON C.J.

The defendant is engaged in carrying great numbers of passengers on its trains above the surface and through the subway in Boston. Its cars are fitted with doors at the end, through which passengers enter, and sliding doors at the side through which they pass out. The stations are not far apart and during the busy hours of the day throngs of passengers are very great. In order to accommodate them with rapid transit, it is important that arrangements be made for their exit and entry at the stations with the least possible delay. To do this, guards are provided at the stations, who open the doors when the trains arrive, so that passengers can quickly leave the cars, and other guards on the trains who open the gates at the ends of the cars, so that other passengers can quickly enter. The plaintiff was accustomed to ride on these cars three or four times a day, and was familiar with the method of managing them. At the time of the accident the car was not crowded, and he had a seat. There were plenty of straps by which one could hold, if he desired, when standing. When the station was called, he arose, walked across the car to the middle door, and took hold with his right hand of the wooden upright part of the side of the door. There was nobody standing in the aisle. As the car came to a stop it jerked somewhat, and he was thrown off his balance, and, in order to steady himself, put out his left hand, the fingers of which rested against the glass of the door near the casing. Before the car had come to a complete stop, the guard on the platform outside the car pulled back the door; and as he did so the middle finger of the plaintiff's left hand, which was resting against the glass of the door, was jammed between the window frame of the door and the door casing. The only negligence relied on by the plaintiff is the opening of the door before the train had come to a full stop.

We need not consider the question whether there was any eivdence of due care on the part of the plaintiff in allowing his fingers to rest against the glass of the door at a time when he knew it was about to be opened, for we are of opinion that there was no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant....