McClinchy v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 18 May 1910
• Citation: 206 Mass. 7,91 N.E. 882
• Parties: McCLINCHY v. BOSTON ELEVATED RY. CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

206 Mass. 7

91 N.E. 882

McCLINCHY v. BOSTON ELEVATED RY. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 18, 1910

COUNSEL

P. H. Kelley, for plaintiff.

R. A Sears and J. E. Hannigan, for defendant.

OPINION

RUGG J.

This case comes before us on a report by the Chief Justice of the superior court, which in substance is a ruling of law that upon all the evidence bearing on the question of the defendant's negligence, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover. He then made a finding for the defendant founded on this ruling of law. The only question presented is whether there is any evidence to support a reasonable inference of negligence on the part of the servants of the defendant.

There was testimony to the effect that the plaintiff was a passenger riding on the seat next the rear door on the right-hand side of a car of the defendant. When the car reached the Dudley Street terminal station the conductor called out the name of the station, and further said 'Change for other lines; leave by the front door,' and that the car stopped. Thereupon as the plaintiff was in the act of rising the car started without warning with a sudden jerk, moving about three feet, and in order to save herself from falling she grasped the jamb of the rear door, and while in the act of steadying herself the conductor closed the door and injured her fingers. After a car came to a stop in the terminal it never started again until the passengers were all out and a signal to start had been given. There was no evidence that any signal was given to start at this time. The conductor testified touching the custom for the orderly exit of passengers: 'When we see that everybody is safely in we close the rear door, so passengers will go out by the forward door.' This all occurred at about 5:45 p. m. of a November day. The defendant, having brought its car to a stop at the terminal and invited its passengers to alight, was bound to give them a reasonable opportunity to do so in safety without subjecting them to the danger likely to ensure from a sudden jar of the car. It may have been found to have been an initial act of negligence under these circumstances to start the car without warning. The position of the conductor was facing and within reach of the door, and it was a part of his duty to see that passengers were safely within the car before closing the door. The inference cannot be said to be unwarranted that he...