Judge v. Elkins
| Decision Date | 01 April 1903 |
| Citation | 183 Mass. 229,66 N.E. 708 |
| Parties | JUDGE v. ELKINS et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Hayes &
Williams, for plaintiff.
John & James A. Lowell, for defendants.
We are of opinion in this case that on the evidence the plaintiff was not in the exercise of due care when he was struck by the electric car of the defendants. Before going from the pathway to the bridge he could see the car standing there, and, if he had looked, he could not have failed to see the motorman getting ready to start. He did not look, but proceeded on his way, having about eight yards to go. He knew that the car took up all the room between the sides of the bridge, and that if it started and overtook him he could do nothing to avoid it, unless he got under the car, which ran on overhead rails. It was dangerous to do so, for he might be struck by one of the hoppers, which came nearly to the surface of the ground. The car started soon after the plaintiff did, and came in contact with him. It could not have been going rapidly, for its rate of full speed was only three and a half miles an hour. The plaintiff testified that he did not see the car after he had started. He had worked near the place of the accident five or six months, and was entirely familiar with the place and the working of the car. While he had some reason to suppose that the car would not start so soon as it did, yet, if he had looked when he came from the pathway on to the course of the car, he could not have failed to see that the motorman was about to start. His not looking shows that he did not exercise due care, and the verdict ordered for the defendants was right. Young v. N. Y., N.H. & H. R. R., 171 Mass. 33, 50 N.E. 455, 41 L. R. A. 193; Martyn v. N.Y. & Boston Despatch Express Co., 176 Mass. 401, 57 N.E. 671; Mathes v. Lowell, Lawrence & Haverhill St. Ry., 177 Mass. 416, 59 N.E. 77; Tirrell v. N. Y., N.H. & H. R. R., 180 Mass. 490, 62 N.E. 745.
Judgment for the defendants.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pere Marquette R. Co. v. Strange
...5 Am. Rep. 201;Bancroft v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 97 Mass. 275;Young v. Old Colony R. Co., 156 Mass. 178, 30 N. E. 560;Judge v. Elkins et al., 183 Mass. 230, 66 N. E. 708;Adams v. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 105 S. W. 526;Weeks v. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 40 La. Ann. 800, 5 S......
-
Pere Marquette Railroad Company v. Strange
... ... Rehearing Denied November 18, 1908, Reported at: 171 Ind. 160 ... From ... Laporte Circuit Court; John C. Richter, Judge ... Action ... by Jeter G. Strange against the Pere Marquette Railroad ... Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant ... Boston, ... etc., R. Co. (1867), 97 Mass. 275; Young v ... Old Colony R. Co. (1892), 156 Mass. 18, 30 N.E. 560; ... Judge v. Elkins (1903), 183 Mass. 229, 66 ... N.E. 708; Adams v. Gulf, etc., R. Co ... (1907), (Tex. Civ. App.), 105 S.W. 526; Weeks v ... New Orleans, etc., R ... ...
-
Hennessey v. Taylor
... ... 416, 59 N.E. 77; ... Donovan v. Lynn & Boston Railroad Co., 185 Mass ... 533, 70 N.E. 1029; Judge v. Elkins, 183 Mass. 229, ... 66 N.E. 708. If she had seen the defendant's machine ... approaching, and decided it was sufficiently distant to ... ...
-
Porter v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co.
... ... & H ... R. R., 195 Mass. 437, 81 N.E. 187, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) ... 1047; Morris v. Boston & Maine R. R., 184 Mass. 368, ... 68 N.E. 680; Judge v. Elkins, 183 Mass. 229, 66 N.E ... 708; Jean v. Boston & Maine R. R., 181 Mass. 197, 63 ... N.E. 399 ... A ... signal ahead ... ...