Pickard v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 28 May 1929
• Citation: 166 N.E. 561,267 Mass. 133
• Parties: PICKARD v. BOSTON ELEVATED RY. CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

267 Mass. 133

166 N.E. 561

PICKARD

v.BOSTON ELEVATED RY. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 28, 1929.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; David F. Dillon, Judge.

Action by Mary A. Pickard against the Boston Elevated Railway Company. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.

M. J. Mulkern, of Boston, for plaintiff.

J. T. Hughes and H. L. Barrett, both of Boston, for defendant.

RUGG, C. J.

There was evidence tending to show that the plaintiff, a passenger of the defendant, left her seat in the car as it neared the stop where she desired to alight, went without bundles or packages to the end of the car near the door, and took hold of the strap with her right hand with a firm grip. Suddenly the car came to a standstill and jerked backward and then forward with such violence as to break her hold on the strap. She was thrown against the seat and rendered insensible by the violence of her fall, two ribs were broken and she was bruised and black and blue in various places. There was evidence of somewhat conflicting statements on the part of the plaintiff. This only affected the weight of her testimony. The motorman of the car testified to the effect that there was a good stop of the car without jerking forward and back, and that there was nothing out of the ordinary about the stopping of the car. Other evidence need not be summarized.

Obviously there was much contrariety in the evidence. It could not rightly have been ruled as matter of law that the plaintiff was not entitled to go to the jury. There was ample ground for a finding of due care and of want of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.

The evidence in its aspect most favorable to the plaintiff would warrant a finding of negligence on the part of the motorman. The effect of the sudden stopping and backing and starting rightly might have been found to be something more than the ordinary jolts and jerks incident to the operation of electric cars. The case falls within the class of cases illustrated by Work v. Boston Elevated R. Co., 207 Mass. 447, 93 N. E. 693, and cases there collected, Convery v. Eastern Massachusetts Street R. Co., 252 Mass. 418, 147 N. E. 824,Warren v. Boston Elevated R. Co., 259 Mass. 226, 155 N. E. 871, and Weiner v. Boston Elevated R. Co., 262 Mass. 539, 160 N. E. 259, where it was held that evidence outside that respecting jolts and jerks was sufficient to support a finding...