Moody v. Boston & M.R.r.
Decision Date | 19 October 1905 |
Citation | 189 Mass. 277,75 N.E. 631 |
Parties | MOODY v. BOSTON & M. R. R. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
E. H. Vaughan and Henry B. Montague, for plaintiff.
Chas M. Thayer and Alex. H. Bullock, for defendant.
This case is here on two exceptions taken by the plaintiff to the charge to the jury. It was an action at common law for injuries and suffering caused by an injury on August 25 1903, from which the intestate died on April 17, 1904. The plaintiff, a married woman weighing about 180 pounds, was a passenger on a train to Boston arriving between 11 and 12, noon. She had with her, in addition to one other child, a boy aged two, which, owing to infirmity, had to be carried. She came onto the platform to leave the car in which she had been, with this child of two on her right arm, holding him in place with her left hand, in which she had also a shopping bag. Her story is that, as she stepped from the lowest step on to the platform, the conductor, who was standing there, put his right arm under her right elbow, but let go of her, and she fell heavily to the platform, and that he said it was his fault; that he ought not to have let go of her. The conductor's story is that he asked her to allow him to take the baby, to which she said, 'No'; that he then put up his hands to assist her, when she fell, pitching him out of the way; and that she said she tripped.
After telling the jury that the duty of the defendant as a carrier of passengers to the plaintiff as a passenger 'was to use the highest degree of care consistent with the undertaking the running of its train, the motive power used, and other things,' the presiding judge went on to say that: It is stated in the bill of exceptions that 'the plaintiff duly excepted to so much of the charge as stated that, if the defendant provides safe means of egress and a safe and convenient place to alight, that fulfills the duty imposed by law.' The judge went on to say that while this is ordinarily so there may be mental...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gorham v. Milford, A. & W. St. Ry. Co.
... ... Consolidated Street Railway Company, 184 Mass. 290, 68 ... N.E. 225; Itzkowitz v. Boston Elevated Railway ... Company, 186 ... ...
- Turners Falls Fire Dist. v. Millers Falls Water Supply Dist.
- Turners Falls Fire Dist. v. Millers Falls Water Supply Dist.