Larson v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co.

• Citation: 212 Mass. 262,98 N.E. 1048
• Parties: LARSON v. BOSTON ELEVATED RY. CO. (two cases.)
• Decision Date: 04 June 1912
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

212 Mass. 262
98 N.E. 1048

LARSON
v.
BOSTON ELEVATED RY. CO. (two cases.)

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

June 4, 1912.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Nathan D. Pratt, Judge.

Two actions, one by Julia J. Larson, and the other by Canute B. Larson, her husband, both against the Boston Elevated Railway Company, for damages from injuries to plaintiff Julia by her hand being caught between the side door of defendant's car, in which plaintiffs were riding as passengers, and the jamb into which the door opened. There were verdicts for plaintiffs, and defendant brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.

Defendant's rule 91 is as follows:

‘Gates and Doors. Rule 91. Every precaution must be taken to avoid accidents. Gates and side doors must never be opened so that passengers can board or leave a moving train, nor must trains ever be started until gates and side doors have been properly closed and all necessary signals given. In all cases of doubt adopt the safe course. Great care must be used in operating gates and doors so that passengers will not be struck or their clothing caught by same. Passengers should be induced to leave car by the side doors and enter by the end doors, provided doors and gates stop abreast of the same place on station platform. Passengers wishing to leave train must be allowed to do so before others are permitted to board.’

Its rule 99, of which there was introduced only the paragraph commencing ‘always face the door,’ is as follows:

‘99. Car Doors. During cold or stormy weather guards and brakemen must be careful to keep the doors of the cars closed as much as possible. Open the door of the front car in your charge first and the door of the rear car afterwards, at all times, and close the door of the rear car first and the forward one afterwards, so as to cause as little draft as possible through the trains.

‘Always face the door when closing it in order to avoid shutting it against a person's hand or clothing; never slam the door but use care to open and shut it noiselessly.’

[212 Mass. 265]

[98 N.E. 1049]

F. J. V. Dakin and Damon E. Hall, both of Boston, for plaintiffs.

Cyrus Brewer, of Boston, for defendant.

SHELDON, J.

[1] The jury had a right to find that the female plaintiff was in the exercise of due care and had not assumed the risk of the accident which happened. The fact that she had left her [212 Mass. 266]seat and walked to the door of the car as it approached the station was not decisive against her. Barden v. Boston, Clinton & Fitchburg R. R., 121 Mass. 426;Worthen v. Grand Trunk Ry., 125 Mass. 99. Her putting her hand upon the door was an involuntary act done to steady herself when the lurch of the car threw her against the door. This presented a question for the jury.

[2] There was also evidence of negligence on the part of the defendants. It is not claimed

[98 N.E. 1050]

that the lurch of the car, however violent and unexpected, constituted such negligence; but the jury might find that it should have operated as a warning to the defendant's servant in charge of the door that passengers who had come or were coming to it for the purpose of leaving the car might be thrown against it and involuntarily might seize any support within their reach. If the person so in charge was the brakeman at the rear of the car, as reasonably might have been inferred, the argument in favor of the plaintiff was strengthened. McGlinchy v. Boston Eley., 206 Mass. 7, 91 N. E. 882. The reasoning in that case is closely applicable to the case at bar.

[3] The admission in evidence of the defendant's rules 91 and 99 was excepted to. That part of rule 91 which states that ‘passengers should be induced to leave the car by the side doors' was plainly competent. It tended to show the necessity of care in opening the door in question...