Holland v. West End St. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 09 January 1892 |
| Citation | 29 N.E. 622,155 Mass. 387 |
| Parties | HOLLAND v. WEST END ST. RY. CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
E.B. Callender and Maher & Hilt, for plaintiff.
M.F. Dickinson, Jr., and W.B. Sprout, for defendant.
If a passenger on a horsecar is injured while intoxicated, this fact alone does not prevent his maintaining an action; but if his intoxication contributes to the injury in any degree he cannot recover. Maguire v. Railroad, 115 Mass. 239. See, also, Alger v. Lowell, 3 Allen, 402. That the plaintiff in this case was drunk at the time of the accident is not disputed, and the evidence introduced in his behalf shows that he had been in this condition for the preceding 24 hours. He himself testified that he had no recollection of taking the car, or of any of the facts connected with the accident, and that he first came to a realization of his injuries at the hospital. Shortly before the accident he was standing on the front platform, with his hands on the guardrail, and his body swaying back and forth. The rate of speed was moderate, being four or five miles an hour; and, although the up and down motion of the car was such at the time the plaintiff went off as to throw another passenger towards the driver, his face striking the driver's shoulder, the bill of exceptions states that there was no evidence of any defect in the rails or in the road-bed. There is, therefore, nothing to show that there was anything extraordinary in this motion. See Stewart v. Railroad Co., 146 Mass. 605, 16 N.E. 466. On this evidence, we are of opinion that the jury would not have been warranted in finding that the plaintiff exercised that degree of care which men of ordinary prudence and caution exercise under like circumstances, or in finding that the plaintiff's condition did not in any degree contribute to the injury. The ruling of the presiding justice directing a verdict for the defendant was therefore right. Exceptions overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bartley v. Metropolitan Street Railway Company
... ... car of defendant for the purpose of being transported [148 ... Mo. 134] to the West Bottoms with the intention of paying the ... usual fare therefor, then he was a passenger of defendant, ... and it became its duty to give ... Stager, 119 Pa. 70, 12 A. 821; Mitchell v ... Railroad, 51 Mich. 236, 16 N.W. 388; Muller v ... Railroad, 48 N.Y.S. 546; Holland v. Railroad, ... 155 Mass. 387, 29 N ... [49 S.W. 845] ... E. 622; Stewart v. Railroad, 146 Mass. 605, 16 N.E ... 466; Railroad v. Cason, ... ...
-
Black v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co.
... ... 340, 6 L. R. A. 241, 16 Am. St. Rep. 334 ... The ... question that we have been discussing was not considered in ... Holland v. West End St. Ry. Co., 155 Mass. 387, 29 ... N.E. 622. It does not appear that there was evidence of ... negligence on the part of the defendant ... ...
-
Mcgann v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co.
... ... School Lane. Cottage street is 630 feet further on than ... School Lane. The plaintiff was thrown off at a point 245 feet ... west of Cottage street, that is to say, as the car in ... question was going it had to go 245 feet beyond the place ... where the plaintiff was thrown ... Boston & Providence R ... R., 146 Mass. 605, 16 N.E. 466; Snowden v. Boston & Maine R. R., 151 Mass. 220, 222, 24 N.E. 40; Holland ... v. West End Street Railway, 155 Mass. 387, 388, 29 N.E ... 622; McCauley v. Springfield Street Railway, 169 ... Mass. 301, 302, 47 N.E. 1006; ... ...
-
Labrecque v. Donham
...jury were so instructed; but if his intoxication contributed to the injury in any degree, she cannot recover. Holland v. West End Street Railway, 155 Mass. 387, 388, 29 N. E. 622;Black v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad, 193 Mass. 448, 450, 79 N. E. 797,7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 148,9 Ann.......