Purtell v. Jordan

CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
Writing for the CourtKNOWLTON, J.
Citation156 Mass. 573,31 N.E. 652
Decision Date23 June 1892
PartiesPURTELL v. JORDAN et al.

156 Mass. 573

31 N.E. 652

PURTELL
v.
JORDAN et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

June 23, 1892


COUNSEL

Edgar O. Achorn and Linus [156 Mass. 576] M. Child, for plaintiff.

Joshua D. Ball and B.L.M. Tower, for defendants.

OPINION

KNOWLTON, J.

There was evidence from which the jury might have found that the injury to the plaintiff was caused by the negligence of the defendants' servant in driving too fast, when, by reason of the gathering darkness, and the close proximity of the high loaded team, he was unable to see whether any one was on the crossing, about to pass immediately before him. The jury might also have found that the plaintiff was using such care as persons of ordinary prudence are accustomed [156 Mass. 577] to exercise under like circumstances. The court rightly refused to order a verdict for the defendants. The defendants requested the presiding justice to instruct the jury as follows: "That if the plaintiff, standing where he was on Harrison avenue, could not, before he attempted to cross the street, by reason of the position and movement of the large team, see vehicles coming down Harrison avenue and approaching Oak street, he was not in the exercise of due care in attempting [31 N.E. 653] to cross the street until such obstacle to his view was removed." "If, when the plaintiff started to cross Harrison avenue, he could not see defendants' team approaching by reason of the position of the large team, and attempted to cross so closely to the rear of the large team that he could not see defendants' team approaching until he got by the large team, he was not in the exercise of due care." It is urged in behalf of the defendants that it is always negligent for a pedestrian in the streets of Boston to attempt to cross behind a high loaded team until the team has passed so far as to enable him to see that no other team is coming from behind it on the other side. We cannot lay this down as a legal proposition. Wellington v. Bowser, 126 Mass. 391; Shapleigh v. Wyman, 134 Mass. 119. The circumstances of different cases so vary, and the natural and usual methods of crossing our crowded streets are so affected by facts and influences which are difficult of statement, and which are seldom found twice in the same combination, that there are few rules of law which can be arbitrarily laid down in reference to the effect of particular acts. When a pedestrian is run over by a team on a street, the question...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Pillet v. Ershick
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • March 8, 1930
    ...v. Adams Express Co., 122Ind. 362, 23 N.E. 1039, 7 L. R. A. 678; Eaton v. Cripps & Bros., 94 Iowa, 176, 62 N.W. 687; Purtell v. Jordan, 156 Mass. 573, 31 N.E. 652. The rule applies with particular appropriateness to cities where the use of streets and street crossings by vehicles and pedest......
  • Hall v. Caughran, 29461
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • May 18, 1931
    ...a traveler has a right to assume that other persons using the highway with him will exercise a proper degree of care. Pertell v. Jordan, 31 N.E. 652; Hennessey v. Taylor, 76 N.E. 224; McDonald v. Bowditch, 87 N.E. 585; Shapleigh v. Wyman, 132 Miss. 118; Thompson on Negligence (Suppl., p. 20......
  • Pitman & Brown Co. v. Eastern Mas. Sachusetts St. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • March 30, 1926
    ...vehicles at intersecting streets the questions of due care and negligence are ordinarily for the jury to decide, Purtell v. Jordan, 31 N. E. 652, 156 Mass. 573;Farris v. Boston Elevated Railway, 96 N. E. 1098, 210 Mass. 585; and is to be distinguished from cases like Pigeon v. Massachusetts......
  • Pitman and Brown Co. v. Eastern Massachusetts Street Railway
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • March 29, 1926
    ...vehicles at intersecting streets the questions of due care and negligence are ordinarily for the jury to decide, Purtell v. Jordan, 156 Mass. 573 , Farris v. Boston Elevated Railway, 210 Mass. 585; and is to be distinguished from cases like Pigeon v. Massachusetts Northeastern Street Railwa......
4 cases
  • Pillet v. Ershick
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • March 8, 1930
    ...v. Adams Express Co., 122Ind. 362, 23 N.E. 1039, 7 L. R. A. 678; Eaton v. Cripps & Bros., 94 Iowa, 176, 62 N.W. 687; Purtell v. Jordan, 156 Mass. 573, 31 N.E. 652. The rule applies with particular appropriateness to cities where the use of streets and street crossings by vehicles and pedest......
  • Hall v. Caughran, 29461
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • May 18, 1931
    ...a traveler has a right to assume that other persons using the highway with him will exercise a proper degree of care. Pertell v. Jordan, 31 N.E. 652; Hennessey v. Taylor, 76 N.E. 224; McDonald v. Bowditch, 87 N.E. 585; Shapleigh v. Wyman, 132 Miss. 118; Thompson on Negligence (Suppl., p. 20......
  • Pitman & Brown Co. v. Eastern Mas. Sachusetts St. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • March 30, 1926
    ...vehicles at intersecting streets the questions of due care and negligence are ordinarily for the jury to decide, Purtell v. Jordan, 31 N. E. 652, 156 Mass. 573;Farris v. Boston Elevated Railway, 96 N. E. 1098, 210 Mass. 585; and is to be distinguished from cases like Pigeon v. Massachusetts......
  • Pitman and Brown Co. v. Eastern Massachusetts Street Railway
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • March 29, 1926
    ...vehicles at intersecting streets the questions of due care and negligence are ordinarily for the jury to decide, Purtell v. Jordan, 156 Mass. 573 , Farris v. Boston Elevated Railway, 210 Mass. 585; and is to be distinguished from cases like Pigeon v. Massachusetts Northeastern Street Railwa......

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