Logan v. Old Colony St. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 03 January 1906 |
| Citation | 190 Mass. 115,76 N.E. 510 |
| Parties | LOGAN v. OLD COLONY ST. RY. CO. WHITE v. SAME. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Wm. Schofield, Judge.
Consolidated actions by Charles J. Logan and by Fergus J. White against the Old Colony Street Railway Company. There was a verdict for plaintiff in each case, and defendant brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.
It is not negligence as a matter of law to drive a team so near a street car track that a car going in the same direction will collide with it.
[Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see vol. 44, Cent. Dig. Street Railroads, ss 211, 212, 255.]
In an action against a street railway company for injuries sustained in a collision with a street car, evidence examined, and held, that the question of the negligence of the motorman was for the jury.
Fredk. J. Daggett and Jas. E. Young, for plaintiffs.
Henry F. Hurlburt and Damon E. Hall, for defendant.
These two actions were tried together. That by Logan is for personal injuries. That by White for injuries to the horses, harnesses, and wagon. The accident occurred on Coddington street, in Quincy, at about half past 7 in the evening of October 3, 1902, and was caused by a rear-end collision between the team belonging to the plaintiff White, which Logan was driving, and a car of the defendant company. The usual questions of due care on the part of the plaintiff and of negligence on the part of the defendant are presented. There was a verdict for the plaintiff in each case, and the cases are here on exceptions by the defendant to the refusal of the court to rule as requested, and to such portions of the charge as were inconsistent therewith.
It would serve no useful purpose to attempt to review and analyze all of the testimony, and we content ourselves with a brief summary and with saying that we think that there was evidence for the jury on both questions. It was for the jury, taking all of the circumstances into account, the kind of night, whether cloudy and misty or not, the manner in which Logan was driving, his knowledge or want of knowledge of the road and of the running of the cars, the extent to which he had a right to rely upon the signals of the motorman, his own condition from the want of sleep, and such other matters as they deemed bore upon the issue, to say whether Logan was...
To continue reading
Request your trial