Hartnett v. Tripp
Decision Date | 27 November 1918 |
Citation | 231 Mass. 382,121 N.E. 17 |
Parties | HARTNETT v. TRIPP. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Joseph F. Quinn, Judge.
Action of tort, for personal injuries when struck by defendant's automobile, by Jeremiah J. Hartnett against Charles E. Tripp. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant excepts. Exceptions overruled.
Jos. J. Donahue, of Boston, for plaintiff.
Sprout & Kendall and Cyrus Brewer, all of Boston, for defendant.
[1] The plaintiff, a police officer of Medford, on the evening of October 7, 1914, boarded an electric car in that city and stood upon the front platform. He was looking for a team that was being driven along the highway without a light attached to it (St. 1916, c. 30), and testified that he so stated to the motorman. He further testified that while he was on the car it stopped at a switch to enable the conductor to get off and adjust a signal; that it started again, and when near the end of the switch he saw the wagon coming toward him and told the motorman to stop the car; that the car was stopped and he stepped off backwards and closed the door; that before he stepped of he ‘looked in both directions up and down the street and saw nothing coming; * * * then [he] stepped down off the car and told the motorman to go ahead‘; that the car did not start from the time he stepped upon the ground until he was struck from behind by the automobile; that he had been on the ground from four to ten seconds before he was hit; that at that time he was standing as close to the car as he could get; and that he heard no signal from the automobile. Upon this evidence it could not have been ruled that the plaintiff was not in the exercise of due care.
[2] It is equally plain that there was evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant; it could have been found that he saw or ought to have seen the car come to a stop when the plaintiff alighted, and that reasonable care required him to have had his machine under such control that he could have stopped it in time to have avoided the accident. There was evidence that he ran the automobile within two feet of the car, although it could have been found that there was ample space in the highway for him to have passed it and thereby avoided hitting the plaintiff. If the jury were satisfied upon the evidence that the car stopped to allow the plaintiff to alight, and the defendant knew it, or in the exercise of reasonable care ought to have known it, there was evidence that he violated that part of section 14 of St. 1909, c. 534, which provides that--
‘In approaching or passing a car of a street railway which has been stopped to allow passengers to alight or embark, the operator of every motor vehicle shall slow down and if it be necessary for the safety of the public he shall bring said vehicle to a full stop.’
If the defendant violated this provision of the statute, it was evidence of negligence.
As a result of the accident the plaintiff received a fracture of the femur of his right leg, and was taken to a hospital, where he remained in bed for about nine weeks; at the end of that time he was able to get up by the use of crutches and sit in a wheel chair; there was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wallace v. Ludwig
... ... Railway, 123 Ala. 233, 249, 250, 26 So. 349; Ohio & Mississippi Railroad v. Hecht, 115 Ind. 443, 444, 448, ... 17 N.E. 297. In Harnett v. Tripp, 231 Mass. 382, 121 ... N.E. 17, it was held that where negligence of the defendant ... had caused the breaking of the leg of the plaintiff and as ... ...
-
Dewing v. New York Cent. R. Co.
...Case, 278 Mass. 447, 180 N. E. 231;Snow v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad, 185 Mass. 321, 70 N. E. 205;Hartnett v. Tripp, 231 Mass. 382, 121 N. E. 17;McGehee v. McCarley (C. C. A.) 91 F. 462;Comstock v. Wilson, 257 N. Y. 231, 177 N. E. 431, 76 A. L. R. 676. The plaintiff testified ......
-
In re Panagotopulos
...Willis' Case, supra. Such further exposure was not an incident of the original injury or of the resulting outbreak. Hence Hartnett v. Tripp, 231 Mass. 382, 121 N. E. 17,Wilder v. General Motorcycle Sales Co., 232 Mass. 305, 122 N. E. 319, and Clayton v. Holyoke Street Railway, 236 Mass. 359......
-
Koehler v. Waukesha Milk Co.
...latent in plaintiff's system, from an injury received by her hand being caught in a car door (page 267 ). See, also, Hartnett v. Tripp, 231 Mass. page 382, 385, 121 N. E. 17, and Kentucky Heating Co. v. Hood, 133 Ky. 383, 118 S. W. 337, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 588, 134 Am. St. Rep. 457. Discuss......