Pitcher v. Old Colony St. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 20 June 1907 |
| Parties | PITCHER v. OLD COLONY ST. RY. CO. (two cases). |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Lafayette G. Blair and Charles S. Hill, for plaintiffs.
Asa P French and Jas. S. Allen, Jr., for defendant.
The female plaintiff, whom we shall speak of as the plaintiff stumbled in the act of leaving the car, over a bag or satchel which another passenger had placed upon the floor and pitched forward striking her head against the door, and receiving the injuries complained of. The plaintiff was seated near the middle of the car, and the jury found in answer to a question submitted to them by the presiding judge that the car was of the ordinary street passenger car type with a seat running lengthwise of the car on each side. The jury also found in answer to questions specially submitted to them by the presiding judge that the accident was not caused by the conductor's negligence, and that the plaintiff was not in the exercise of due care, and returned a general verdict for the defendant. The cases are here on exceptions by the plaintiffs to the admission and exclusion of evidence, to the refusal to give certain rulings that were requested, and to certain instructions that were given.
The answers of the jury to the questions that were submitted to them were in the nature of special findings (Ellis v. Block, 187 Mass. 408, 414, 73 N.E. 475; Spurr v. Shelburne, 131 Mass. 429; Mair, Ex'r, v. Bassett, 117 Mass. 356); and if there was evidence warranting a finding that there was no negligence on the part of the defendant or that the plaintiff was not in the exercise of due care and there was no error in respect thereof in the rulings or instructions or the admission or exclusion of evidence, then the verdict must stand even though there may have been error in respect to the other branch of the case.
We think that there was evidence warranting the finding that there was no negligence on the part of the defendant, and we see no error in regard to the instructions or the refusals or in the admission or exclusion of evidence relating thereto. Considering the character and description of the car it could not be ruled as matter of law that it was negligent for the conductor to suffer the bag to be put and to remain on the floor, and the jury must have found under the instructions of the court that it was not so placed as to obstruct the free passage of the plaintiff out of the car, or to render the passageway dangerous to a person in the exercise of due care. The defendant was not bound as the plaintiff asked the court to instruct the jury, 'to exercise towards her the utmost care and diligence in providing against those injuries which can be averted by human foresight,' but, as the court instructed the jury, it owed to her 'the highest degree of care which was consistent with the practical carrying on of its business.' Nichols v. Boston & Lynn R. R., 168 Mass. 528, 47 N.E. 427; Kuhlen v. Boston &...
To continue reading
Request your trial