Horsman v. Brockton & P. St. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 17 May 1910 |
| Citation | 205 Mass. 519,91 N.E. 897 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | HORSMAN v. BROCKTON & P. ST. RY. CO. DAVIS v. SAME. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Plymouth County; Henry A. King, Judge.
Actions by William S. Horsman and by Charles H. Davis against the Brockton & Plymouth Street Railway Company. Verdict directed for defendant, and plaintiffs except. Exceptions sustained.
The demand for rapid transportation by street railway companies does not relieve them from compliance with the law of the road, subject only to the modifications that the path of the car is fixed, while travelers, either on foot or in vehicles, may use the entire way, so far as it has been fitted and opened for public travel.
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Street Railroads, Dec. Dig. s 81.*]
* For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Reporter Indexes
The rule that, where a highway crosses a steam railroad at grade, a traveler who neglects either to look or listen for approaching trains before crossing, but passes on and is injured, cannot recover, does not apply in favor of street railroads.
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Street Railroads, Cent. Dig. s 208; Dec. Dig. s 98.*]
* For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Reporter Indexes
A street railroad is required to regulate the speed of a car, and, if necessary, to sound the gong, that travelers using due care while passing upon the track from intersecting driveways or streets may not be imperiled by collisions.
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Street Railroads, Cent. Dig. ss 195-200; Dec. Dig. s 93.*]
* For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Reporter Indexes
Evidence that plaintiff, driving towards a street railroad, some distance before he reached the track, could see 300 feet up the track, and see that there were no cars approaching, but as he approached nearer his view was obstructed, justified the jury in finding that to again look and listen, where he knew that any further observation would have been prevented till he arrived so near the track that he could not turn back, was uncalled for.
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Street Railroads, Cent. Dig. s 215; Dec. Dig. s 99.*]
* For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Reporter Indexes
Whether plaintiff, driving toward a street car track, having observed the track some time before he reached it, at a distance of 300 feet from the crossing, properly acted on his judgment that if a car came at the usual rate of speed he had ample time to go over, or whether he should have stopped, alighted, and ascertained before attempting to cross, if a car was coming, were questions of fact, and not of law.
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Street Railroads, Cent. Dig. s 249; Dec. Dig. s 117.*]
* For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Reporter Indexes
In an action for injuries in a collision between a vehicle and a street car, plaintiff's knowledge of defendant's method of operating its cars, as to speed and sounding its gong at intersecting streets, which he claimed was not rung in this case, was relevant.
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Street Railroads, Dec. Dig. s 113.*]
* For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Reporter Indexes
Where a street car was moving at a rate of speed forbidden by the town ordinances, and in violation of the rules of the road, and without giving the customary signals of its approach, the jury were warranted in finding that the accident was caused by the negligence of the motorman, for whose acts the company would be responsible.
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Street Railroads, Dec. Dig. s 93.*]
* For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Reporter IndexesJames H. Vahey and John P. Vahey (Philip Mansfield, of counsel), for plaintiffs.
Henry F. Hurlburt, Jas. T. Connolly, and Damon E. Hall, for defendant.
In the first case the plaintiff sues for personal injuries caused by a collision of the defendant's car with the team which he was driving, while the second action is brought by the owner for damages to his horse and wagon. At the close of the evidence verdicts for the defendant having been ordered, because the presiding judge was of opinion as matter of law ‘that it appeared that at the time of the accident the plaintiff was not in the exercise or due care,’ the question for decision is whether the ruling was erroneous. It is doubtless true, as the defendant strongly urges, that since the elimination of horse cars and the substitution of electricity, passengers desire rapid transportation, and for their accommodation a heavier and more expensive equipment has been provided, with increased speed. But this demand, even when properly recognized within reasonable limits, does not relieve the carrier from compliance with the law of the road, subject only to the modifications often pointed out, that the path of the car is fixed, while travelers, either on foot or in vehicles, may use the entire way so far as it has been fitted and opened for public travel. Scannell v. Boston Elevated Ry., 176 Mass. 170, 173, 57 N. E. 341;Wright v. Boston & Nothern St. Ry., 203 Mass. 569, 89 N. E. 1073. If the general rule, that where a highway crosses the tracks of a steam railroad at grade and when such conduct is necessary for his safety, a traveler who neglects to take the precaution either to look or listen for approaching trains before crossing, but passes on and is injured, cannot recover, because he has failed to act with ordinary prudence, this rule of conduct, which has become of law, has not been applied in favor of street railways in their use of the public ways. Hennessey v. Taylor, 189 Mass. 583, 76 N. E. 224,3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 345;Scannell v. Boston Elevated Ry., 176 Mass. 170, 173, 57 N. E. 341;O'Brien v. Lexington & Northern St. Ry., 205 Mass. 182, 91 N. E. 204. If adopted, it would not only unduly delay traffic on the principal streets of cities and towns, which generally are selected for a franchise by the company, but render the streets extremely dangerous for the accommodation of the general public, for whose use they were primarily designed. Com. v. N. Y. Central & Hudson River R. R., 202 Mass. 394, 398, 88 N. E. 764,23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 350. If companies operating interurban lines running over highways, which for long distances are not subjected to much public travel, should have the privilege of an exclusive and paramount right of way analogous to that conferred upon steam railroads, it is for the Legislature to grant the right, and to define the conditions under which it shall be exercised. The defendant, in the management of the car at the time and place of the accident, was...
To continue reading
Request your trial