Jacobs v. West End St. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 01 March 1901
• Citation: 59 N.E. 639,178 Mass. 116
• Parties: JACOBS v. WEST END ST. RY. CO. (two cases).
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

178 Mass. 116

59 N.E. 639

JACOBS v. WEST END ST. RY. CO. (two cases).

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

March 1, 1901

COUNSEL

Winthrop H. Wade and John M. Merriam, for plaintiffs.

M. F Dickinson and Walter Bates Farr, for defendant.

OPINION

LORING J.

This is an exceedingly close case. On the one hand, as street cars are run, it is not negligent to take on passengers when all the seats are occupied, when there is no more standing room in the passageway of the car, and the new passengers have to stand on the platforms, and even on the steps. Meesel v Railroad Co., 8 Allen, 234. Furthermore, a passenger takes the risks incident to the mode of travel he chooses to adopt; as, for example, the risk of being injured in the removal of an objectionable passenger from a crowded car. Spade v. Railroad Co., 172 Mass. 488, 52 N.E. 747 43 L. R. A. 832. On the other hand, it has been held that a street-railway company may be held liable for negligence if it allows its car to be so crowded with passengers that one of them is crowded off a platform while the car is proceeding on its way. Lehr v. Railroad Co., 118 N.Y. 556, 23 N.E. 889; Reem v. Railroad Co., 77 Minn. 503, 80 N.W. 638, 778; Pray v. Railway Co., 44 Neb. 167, 62 N.E. 447. It has also been held that the duty which a street railway owes to its passengers is not terminated until the passenger has alighted from the car, and covers the time during which the passenger is getting off. And, lastly, it may be that, if an aged woman passenger is pushed off the step by the turbulent behavior of the crowd behind her while she is alighting from the front platform under the very eyes of the motorman, there is evidence of negligence for the jury (Hansen v. Railway Co. [N. J. Err. & App.] 46 A 718); and so, also, when the passenger is jostled by incoming passengers, as in Buck v. Railroad Co. (Com. Pl.) 2 N.Y.S. 718; Id. (Com. Pl.) 6 N.Y.S. 524; Id. (Com. Pl.) 10 N.Y.S. 107. See, in this connection, Treat v. Railroad Co., 131 Mass. 371, 373, where the presence of an excessive crowd on a train on a steam railroad is considered in a case where the train never came to a full stop at the station at which the plaintiff had a right to get off. In the case at bar there was no evidence that the injury which the plaintiff in the first case suffered was caused by any defect in the platform, but it appeared that it was caused by the plaintiff's tripping over 'something' while she was on the rear platform on her way to the street. There was evidence that the crowd on the platform made it 'impossible for the plaintiff to get at and use the iron rail at the rear of the car' to steady herself as she was getting off; and it appeared 'that the conductor was inside of the car'--'in the middle of the car'--while the plaintiff was alighting. It may be conceded in this case that it is the duty of a conductor who is on the rear platform when a passenger is alighting to see to it that the passenger has an opportunity to alight with safety, and that it is his duty to see to it that passengers who are blocking the exit shall stand aside, or even alight from the car temporarily. Passengers who choose to take passage on a car which is so crowded that they have to stand on the rear platform or on the steps, and who thereby block the exit from the car, assume all inconveniences incident thereto, including that of temporarily alighting, when necessary, to allow a proper exit for passengers who wish to get off. If also may be conceded that the conductor's duty requires him, when not otherwise engaged, to...