Maguire v. Middlesex R. Co.

• Decision Date: 19 June 1874
• Citation: Maguire v. Middlesex R. Co., 115 Mass 239 (Mass. 1874)
• Parties: James Maguire v. Middlesex Railroad Company
• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

115 Mass. 239

James Maguire v. Middlesex Railroad Company

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

June 19, 1874

Suffolk. Tort for an injury sustained by the plaintiff while a passenger in one of the defendant's horse-cars, by being thrown from it by the alleged carelessness of the driver. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Devens, J., the plaintiff testified that in May, 1871, he was a passenger on one of the defendant's horse-cars, which had no conductor, and was driven by a man usually employed as a watchman, but who also was employed by the defendant once or twice in the evening to drive. The plaintiff also stated that when he entered the car he observed the seats within were full, and took his place on the front platform beside the driver; that the driver started his horses upon a run, and when he had ridden about half a mile, and the car was going down a declivity, the driver suddenly reined in the horses and applied the brake, and stopped the car, and he was thereby thrown from the platform and fell upon his side, and the wheel crushed his arm.

"The plaintiff also called as a witness a man who, previous to the accident, had been in charge of the stables of the defendant at Medford, who stated that he had hired for the company the driver of the car from which the plaintiff was thrown, and that this driver had driven but four or five times over the road, and the witness had seen him stop several times very suddenly, and the defendant objecting to such evidence, the counsel of the plaintiff proceeded no further with the inquiry, and thereupon the defendant took exception to this evidence."

The evidence at the trial was conflicting on the points whether the car stopped suddenly, and whether the plaintiff was intoxicated at the time of the accident.

The defendant requested the court to instruct the jury that if the plaintiff was standing on the front platform of the car when there was room for him to have gone inside, and fell, or was thrown to the ground, that he could not recover; but the court declined so to rule, and left it to the jury to determine under all the circumstances of the case as proved whether or not the plaintiff had shown that he was in the use of due care when he met with the injury.

The defendant also requested the court to instruct the jury that if the plaintiff was intoxicated at the time he received the injury, he could not recover; but the court declined to do so, and instructed the jury that if they were satisfied that the plaintiff was intoxicated, and that his intoxication contributed to...