Lynch v. Fisk Rubber Co.

• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
• Writing for the Court: BRALEY
• Citation: Lynch v. Fisk Rubber Co., 209 Mass. 16, 95 N. E. 400 (Mass. 1911)
• Decision Date: 19 May 1911
• Parties: LYNCH v. FISK RUBBER CO.

209 Mass. 16

95 N.E. 400

LYNCH

v.FISK RUBBER CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 19, 1911.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; John F. Brown, Judge.

Action by Nicholas A. Lynch against the Fisk Rubber Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings exceptions. Exceptions sustained.

1. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (s 706*)-USE OF STREET BY PEDESTRIANS-CARE REQUIRED.

The failure of a pedestrian to look for approaching teams and vehicles before passing over a crosswalk is not necessarily such negligence as will prevent his recovery for injuries by a passing automobile.

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Dec. Dig. s 706.*]

* For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep'r Indexes

2. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (s 705*)-USE OF STREETS-RECIPROCAL RIGHTS OF PEDESTRIANS AND AUTOMOBILES.

The duties of pedestrians and automobile drivers are reciprocal, to the same extent as in the case of pedestrians and horse-drawn vehicles, and neither may negligently exercise the right of transit.

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Dec. Dig. s 705.*]

* For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep'r Indexes

3. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (s 706*)-USE OF STREETS-ACTION FOR INJURIES-QUESTION FOR JURY.

In an action for personal injuries from being struck by an automobile while plaintiff was crossing a street on foot, evidence held to require submission to the jury of the question as to plaintiff's due care and defendant's negligence.

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Dec. Dig. s 706.*]

* For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep'r Indexes

Declan D. Corcoran and Declan W. Corcoran, for plaintiff.

Walter I. Badger and Wm. Harold Hitchcock, for defendant.

BRALEY, J.

This is an action to recover for personal injuries suffered by the plaintiff from being run over by an automobile, owned and operated by the defendant, while they were concurrently using a public way. In the superior court, at the close of the plaintiff's evidence, a verdict was ordered for the defendant, and the case is here on exceptions. It is the defendant's contention that there was no evidence of the plaintiff's due care, or of its negligence. The plaintiff was employed by marketmen to deliver goods to their customers, which he carried in bundles, either on his shoulders, or in his arms. After making a delivery on the day of the accident he was returning to his place of employment, when it became necessary to pass over the street where he was struck, while on the crosswalk, by the automobile, and the jury could find that before starting he looked in each direction...