Niles v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co.

Decision Date10 January 1917
Citation225 Mass. 570,114 N.E. 730
PartiesNILES v. BOSTON ELEVATED RY. CO.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Exceptions from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Frederick Lawton, Judge.

Action by Francis D. Niles against the Boston Elevated Railway Company. On defendant's exception to the giving of an instruction. Exceptions sustained.

F. H. Stevens, of Boston, for plaintiff.

Francis J. Carney, of Boston, for defendant.

CARROLL, J.

The plaintiff was a passenger on one of the defendant's cars in Watertown, intending to go to Newton. This car, hereafter referred to as the Watertown car, went no farther than the car barn, Galen Street, Watertown, and it was necessary for her to change there in order to enter the Newton car, which was about three carlengths farther on in a direct line. When the Watertown car stopped at the car barn, the conductor said, ‘All change here. All change. All change for Newton.’ The passengers then alighted, the plaintiff being the last one in the car, and leaving at the rear end. While she was walking on Galen Street in the direction of the Newton car, the Watertown car started, and as it rounded the curve to enter the barn the side of it struck her. She was familiar with the locality and knew that the Watertown car was to enter the car barn and that the curve from the street to the barn was a sharp one. There was a verdict for the plaintiff.

In her declaration the plaintiff alleged that while transferring from the Watertown to the Newton car, she was a passenger. The presiding judge left it to the jury to decide whether, on the facts shown, she was such, and the defendant's exception to this instruction presents the only question for decision.

[1] The plaintiff when injured, was not on the defendant's premises, nor at a station or platform in use for the purpose of transferring passengers and within the control of the carrier; neither was she under its direction and within its care. She was upon a public highway where she was exposed to dangers not eaused by the defendant. In passing from one car to the other she could go on either side of the car, she could choose her own way and her movements were entirely under her own guidance. While so walking on a public highway and in transferring from one car to the other, as matter of law, she was not a passenger.

There may be cases where there is evidence to show that the carrier assumes to direct the movements of persons while upon the highway, or where such a duty rests upon it and where the facts justify the finding that although upon the highway, they are in the care of the carrier and the relation of passenger and carrier exists. But there are no such facts in the case at bar.

In Wakeley v. Boston Elev. Ry., 217 Mass. 488, 105 N. E. 436, the passenger was injured while in the act of alighting from a car, by stepping into a depression. In Powers v. Old...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Anton v. St. Louis Public Service Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • May 17, 1934
    ...... Virginia Ry. & Power Co. v. Dressler, 132 Va. 342,. 111 S.E. 243, 22 A. L. R. 301; Niles v. Railroad. Co., 225 Mass. 570, 114 N.E. 730; Keator v. Scranton. Traction Co., 191 Pa. 102, ... a passenger during such interval." [See to like effect. Niles v. Boston El. Railroad Co., 225 Mass. 570, 114. N.E. 730.]. [71 S.W.2d 707] . .           ......
  • Anton v. St. Louis Pub. Serv. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • May 17, 1934
    ...entitled him to further passage. Virginia Ry. & Power Co. v. Dressler, 132 Va. 342, 111 S.E. 243, 22 A.L.R. 301; Niles v. Railroad Co., 225 Mass. 570, 114 N.E. 730; Keator v. Scranton Traction Co., 191 Pa. 102, 43 Atl. 86, 44 L.R.A. 546; Wilson v. Railroad Co., 167 Mich. 107, 132 N.W. 768; ......
  • Va. Ry. & Power Co v. Dressler
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Virginia
    • March 16, 1922
    ...That court, after a careful examination of the authorities, adopted the view of the Massachusetts court in Niles v. Boston Electric Ry. Co., 225 Mass. 570, 114 N. E. 730, hereinafter more particularly mentioned, and also approved the Tennessee case of Chattanooga Electric Ry. Co. v. Boddy, ......
  • Patterson v. Duke Power Co, 667.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • January 31, 1946
    ...Inc., 3 La.App. 217; Chattanooga Electric Ry. Co. v. Boddy, 105 Tenn. 666, 58 S.W. 646, 51 L.R.A. 885; Niles v. Boston Elevated R. Co, 225 Mass. 570, 114 N.E. 730; Virginia Ry. &[36 S.E.2d 716] Power Co. v. Dressier, supra; Klovedale v. Ohio Public Service Co, 54 Ohio App. 244, 6 N.E.2d 995......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT