Leo v. Eastern Massachusetts St. Ry. Co. 

• Decision Date: 27 February 1926
• Parties: DI LEO v. EASTERN MASSACHUSETTS ST. RY. CO. (two cases).
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

255 Mass. 140

150 N.E. 891

DI LEO

v.EASTERN MASSACHUSETTS ST. RY. CO. (two cases).

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

Feb. 27, 1926.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Middlesex County; P. J. O'Connell, Judge.

Separate actions of tort by Antonietta Di Leo and by Nazzario Di Leo against the Eastern Massachusetts Street Railway Company, to recover for personal injuries to the first named plaintiff and to recover for medical services and expenses incurred by second named plaintiff in consequence of such injuries. Cases tried together. Verdict was directed for defendant, and plaintiffs except. Exceptions overruled.

J. W. Pickering, of Boston (J. Vecchioni, of Boston, for counsel), for plaintiffs.

A. F. Bickford, of Boston, for defendant.

PIERCE, J.

[1] These were two actions of tort brought by the plaintiffs against the same defendant: One to recover for personal injuries received by the plaintiff in the first case while a passenger on one of the defendant's cars, and the other, by her husband to recover for medical services and nursing expense incurred by him in consequence of said injuries to his wife. The cases were tried together. At the close of the evidence the court, upon motion of the defendant, ordered a verdict for the defendant, and the cases come before this court on the plaintiffs' exceptions to that order.

‘The accident happened on January 1, 1923, at about eight o'clock in the evening. It was a dark and cloudy night. The plaintiff and her husband were passengers on an electric car of the defendant company which was in charge of an operator. The electric car was bound from Norwood, Massachusetts, to Grove street, Boston. The car was lighted. The accident happened on Washington street between East and Curve streets in the town of Dedham. Washington street in a public highway in the town of Dedham. It runs in a northerly direction from Dedham to Boston. It has a macadam and tarvia surface which is sufficiently wide to accommodate two lines of vehicles. On Washington street between East and Curve streets a single line of tracks of the defendant company is situated upon the extreme easterly side of the street and some distance beyond the easterly edge of the tarvia surface. * * * East of the tracks is a stone well and east of the wall is vacant land with only one or two houses. There are no cross or intersecting streets between East and Curve streets. There is a slight down grade when going in a northerly direction. * * * After leaving East street the car was proceeding on a slight down grade at the rate of twenty miles an hour. The first thing that attracted the attention of the plaintiffs was that they saw the operator, who was stationed at the front of the car, suddenly throw off his power, put on his brakes, and jump back. There was a crash, and the car stopped at once. The force of the collision was such that the glass windows in the front vestibule of the car were smashed, the power box or electric controller at the left and front part of the vestibule were broken down, and the operator's seat in the left front of the car was broken to pieces. * * * The plaintiff pulled the emergency cord which opened the rear door of the car, out of which he carried his wife, who had been thrown against the seat in front of her and had fainted. * * * The car was then standing...