Jeddrey v. Boston & N. St. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 10 March 1908 |
| Citation | 198 Mass. 232,84 N.E. 316 |
| Parties | JEDDREY v. BOSTON & N. ST. RY. CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Jos F. Quinn, for plaintiff.
M. L Sullivan, for defendant.
The plaintiff was driving an ice wagon on a principal street in Salem, in the center of which were two parallel tracks of the defendant. The street ran generally in an easterly and westerly direction, and the plaintiff was proceeding westward on the northerly side of the street. He was driving a pair of horses attached to an ordinary covered, springless ice cart with no cut under, weighing from 2,800 to 3,000 pounds, which was loaded with about 3 1/2 tons of ice. His employer's office was on the southerly side of the street, and nearly opposite the place of accident. The stables used in the ice business were about 150 feet back from the street line, and there were large scales in front of the stables, both to the west of the office building. The horses and all but the rear part of the wagon had crossed and were clear of the northerly track, on which, in the same direction as that from which the plaintiff had driven, came the car which occasioned the injury. The accident occurred at just before noon of a clear day. There was evidence tending to show that the plaintiff was an experienced driver about 59 years old. As he came along the street opposite to the office of his employer, he was signaled to cross the street; he looked 'back out by the side' of the wagon to see if anything was in the way 'far enough to see that it was perfectly safe to go over' perhaps '200 or 300 feet,' and saw no car, and saw none until it was struck; the horses were walking; one Porter, who signaled the plaintiff to come across, saw the car coming, and thought there was time for the plaintiff to go across in front of it; the plaintiff needed to be on the extreme right of the street in order to make a turn into the scales, because a dead axle, like that which he was driving, required much room to turn, and it was necessary to make a square turn and would not be a proper way to go diagonally across the tracks; the car was going at a speed of between 10 and 12 miles an hour, and did not slow up at all until it struck the wagon, although there was an outcry by passengers when it was at a distance estimated from 30 [198 Mass. 234] to 50 feet from the ice wagon; when the team was on the tracks the car was 30 to 40 feet away; the car struck the near rear wheel, and tipped the wagon over on its side, spilling a good deal of the ice, making a very loud noise, and carrying the team along 5 or 10 feet; the front of the wagon was broken by ice being shoved through it; the pole and one forward wheel were in good condition, but the rest of the wagon was badly broken; it did not appear that a gong or bell at any time was sounded on the car.
The principles of law which govern this case have been recently and oftentimes stated. The street railway company has no exclusive right to occupancy of that portion of the highway on which its tracks are located. Other travelers in vehicles have an equal right to use this, as well as different portions of the way, not only for crossing but for progressing, subject only to the restriction that they must not unreasonably obstruct the street, cars, which by the limitations of their construction and legal rights can proceed only on their rails. The duty of using reasonable care to avoid collisions rests upon all travelers alike, the trolley car as well as the ice wagon. Under some circumstances it would not be unreasonable for the driver of a vehicle to deliberately drive upon a track under conditions, which would compel the motorman of an electric car to abate its speed in order to avoid peril of injury under other circumstances such conduct might be grossly negligent. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial