Perkins v. Bay State St. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 03 March 1916
• Citation: 223 Mass. 235,111 N.E. 717
• Parties: PERKINS v. BAY STATE ST. RY. CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

223 Mass. 235

111 N.E. 717

PERKINS

v.BAY STATE ST. RY. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Essex.

March 3, 1916.

Report from Superior Court, Essex County; Charles U. Bell, Judge.

Action by Sophia S. Perkins against the Bay State Street Railway Company. There was a verdict for plaintiff, and the cause reported for the determination of the Supreme Judicial Court. Judgment ordered for defendant.

Wm. E. Sisk and Richard L. Sisk, both of Lynn, for plaintiff.

Parsons & Bowen, of Lynn, for defendant.

BRALEY, J.

It has been repeatedly stated that the duty of a common carrier of passengers whether by land or water is to furnish suitable vessels or vehicles for the safe carriage of travelers with such reasonable accommodations as usually are provided on similar conveyances. Marshall v. Boston & Worc. St. Ry., 195 Mass. 284, 286, 287, 81 N. E. 195, and cases cited; 4 R. C. L. Carriers, §§ 524, 586. And where as in the case at bar a passenger in the exercise of due care is injured through the alleged negligence of the carrier in not providing safe and sufficient means of transportation, the question is whether that degree of care which prudent competent persons would have used under similar conditions to avoid the occurrence of such accidents has been exercised. Le Barron v. East Boston Ferry, 11 Allen, 312, 315, 87 Am. Dec. 717. It appears from the record that when leaving the car which was of the semiconvertible type the plaintiff caught the heel of her boot in the cleats or guides at the threshold of the door causing her to be thrown into the vestibule and severely injured. The car was new and no claim is made that it was defective or out of repair, but she contends that the construction and arrangement of the threshold were faulty and unsafe. It is to be observed that no part of the car gave way. The mere happening of the accident therefore affords no presumption of negligence, and the burden was on the plaintiff to introduce some affirmative evidence from which the jury could find that the defendant had failed to use due care in the equipment of its railway. Carroll v. Boston Elev. Ry., 200 Mass. 527, 536, 86 N. E. 793;Carney v. Boston Elev. Ry., 212 Mass. 179, 98 N. E. 605,42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 190, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 302. The material facts not in controversy are, that cars of this type having iron thresholds consisting of one casting with a series or row of cleats or guides a quarter of an inch in height above the surface through...