Moody v. Springfield St. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 30 October 1902
• Citation: 65 N.E. 29,182 Mass. 158
• Parties: MOODY v. SPRINGFIELD ST. RY. CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

182 Mass. 158

65 N.E. 29

MOODY v. SPRINGFIELD ST. RY. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Hampden.

October 30, 1902

COUNSEL

J. D. Carroll and W. H. McClintock, for plaintiff.

Brooks & Hamilton and Jonathan Barnes, for defendant.

OPINION

MORTON, J.

This is an action of tort for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff while a passenger upon one of the defendant's cars. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence the court directed a verdict for the defendant, and the case is here upon exceptions by the plaintiff to this ruling and direction, and to the exclusion of certain evidence.

The plaintiff started with some friends from his home in Springfield for the Union Station. They stopped one of the defendant's cars going in that direction, and the plaintiff's friends got on board. The plaintiff walked towards the rear end of the car, and, getting onto the running board, paid to the conductor the fares for his friends and himself. The conductor started the car at or about the time that the fares were paid, and the plaintiff, desiring to take a seat with his friends, moved along the running board, with the aid of the grab handles, towards them. While in this position he was struck by an approaching car on the other track, and received the injuries complained of. The plaintiff testified that no warning of the approaching car was given by a gong or signal of any kind, and that the first he knew of the approach of the car was that he was struck by it. He also testified that the conductor said nothing to him as he started forward along the running board, or at any time before the accident. The accident occurred June 2, 1901 about half past 5 in the afternoon; and for some distance from the place of the accident the tracks were straight in the direction of the approaching car, though just how far was not clear. The plaintiff offered to show that prior to June 2d he had been on the running boards of cars in Springfield of the defendant company on the same side on which other cars passed, and that the cars had passed each other without accident to any one. The court excluded the testimony, and the plaintiff excepted. There was testimony tending to show that the defendant company bought some new cars in the spring of 1901, and that the car which struck the plaintiff was one of these new cars. The plaintiff offered to show that a rail was used upon the inside of these cars, and that down to the time when these cars had been purchased and put in operation all the cars in Springfield had been of the same width, and that no car had been wider than that on which the plaintiff was when injured. The court excluded this evidence, and the plaintiff excepted.

We think that the rulings were right. Without undertaking to say that in no case would a passenger upon an electric street car, who was injured by being struck by a passing car while attempting to pass along the running board, while the car on which he was was in motion, from one part...