Marr v. Boston & M.R.r.
| Decision Date | 03 April 1911 |
| Citation | 208 Mass. 446,94 N.E. 692 |
| Parties | MARR v. BOSTON & M. R. R. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
F. P. Garland, A. W. Shepard, and Bernard Berenson for plaintiff.
Trull & Wier, for defendant.
The plaintiff's story was that she was pushed off the car platform onto the station floor as she was alighting in Boston. She testified that after reaching the platform of the car she waited until the skirts of a woman in front of her 'were off the top stairs and I could step down,' and then as she put one foot down from the car platform to the top step she was pushed off the car. The plaintiff was accompanied by her daughter and her son, and there was evidence that there were some five persons between the mother and the daughter, ten or a dozen between the daughter and the son, and two persons behind the son. There also was evidence that the train stopped before getting fairly into the station and that it was dark at the part of the platform here in question. Further there was evidence that the train in question was crowded when it reached Wyoming where the plaintiff got on, and that that train usually was crowded. Lastly there was evidence that there was a great deal of pushing and justling among those behind the plaintiff.
The presiding judge left the case to the jury under the doctrine of Kuhlen v. Boston & Northern St. Ry., 193 Mass 341, 79 N.E. 815, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 729, 118 Am. St. Rep 516, Beverley v. Boston Elev. Ry., 194 Mass. 450, 80 N.E. 507, and Glennen v. Boston Elev. Ry., 207 Mass. 497, 93 N.E. 700. But although there was evidence that the train in question was usually overcrowded, there was no evidence that on previous occasions the passengers had jostled or pushed each other, and therefore there was no reason why the defendant should have anticipated that the man who did jostle or push the plaintiff would do so. Further than that, the overcrowding had ceased before the accident here in question occurred. On the evidence there were but twenty persons at the most behind the plaintiff. There is nothing unusual in that. That is what is often the case when a passenger leaves a steam railroad car of the kind in use in this country. The case comes within cases like Willworth v. Boston Elev. Ry., 188 Mass. 220, 74 N.E. 333, McCumber v. Boston Elev. Ry., 207 Mass. 559, 93 N.E. 698, and Ellinger v. Philadelphia, Wilmington & Baltimore R. R., 153...
To continue reading
Request your trial