Rundgren v. Boston & N. St. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 25 February 1909 |
| Citation | 87 N.E. 189,201 Mass. 156 |
| Parties | RUNDGREN v. BOSTON & N. ST. RY. CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Cornelius A. Parker and Theodore Von Rosenvinge, for plaintiff.
Endicott P. Saltonstall, for defendant.
We are of opinion that as matter of law the plaintiff was guilty of negligence which contributed to the injury, and for that reason the judge was right in directing a verdict for the defendant. The case comes within Madden v. Boston Elevated Ry., 194 Mass. 491, 80 N.E. 447; and cases there cited. See, also, Holian v. Boston Elevated Ry., 194 Mass. 74, 80 N.E. 1, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 166; Fitzgerald v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co., 194 Mass. 242, 80 N.E. 224; Beirne v. Lawrence & Methuen St. Ry., 197 Mass. 173, 83 N.E. 359.
The plaintiff had no right to go to the jury on his right to rely and his reliance in fact on the sign 'Go slowly,' and on the practice of the defendant in causing the other cars to slow down or stop under circumstances like those in the case at bar. He looked before he stepped upon the track, saw the car and yet went across. See Casey v. Boston Elevated Ry., 197 Mass. 440, 83 N.E. 867.
Neither can the plaintiff invoke the doctrine of one put in sudden peril. If he was walking so fast that he could not stop when he saw the car, that was in itself negligence. A plaintiff cannot invoke the doctrine of sudden peril to extricate himself from the position into which he has come through his own negligence. He testified that being too late for the 7:30 gang of workmen he could not go to work until 8:30, and that having 55 minutes to spare he was in no hurry.
Exceptions overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rollande L. Landry v. Germaine Prevost Hubert
... ... N.Y., N.H. and H. R. R. Co. , 223 ... Mass. 444, 448, 111 N.E. 960; Tuttle v. St. Ry ... Co. , 239 Mass. 553, 556, 132 N.E. 360; Rundgren ... v. St. Ry. Co. , 201 Mass. 156, 158, 87 N.E. 189; ... Fitzpatrick v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co. , 249 ... Mass. 140, 144 N.E. 75, 76; ... ...
-
Isaacson v. Boston
...by his own negligent act. One cannot shield himself behind an emergency created by his own unlawful act. Rundgren v. Boston & Northern Street Railway, 201 Mass. 156, 87 N. E. 189;Tuttle v. Connecticut Valley Street Railway, 239 Mass. 553, 132 N. E. 360. See, also, Carpenter v. Campbell Auto......
-
Landry v. Hubert
...N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 223 Mass. 444, 448, 111 N. E. 960; Tuttle v. St. Ry. Co., 239 Mass. 553, 556, 132 N. E. 360; Rundgren v. St. Ry. Co., 201 Mass. 156, 158, 87 N. E. 189; Fitzpatrick v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co., 249 Mass. 140, 144 N. E. 75, 76; Anderson v. Davis, 151 Minn. 454, 187 N. W. ......
-
Bothwell v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co.
...Black v. N. Y., N.H. & H. R. R. Co., 193 Mass. 448, 450, 79 N.E. 797, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 148, 8 Ann. Cas. 485; Rundgren v. B. & N. St. Ry., 201 Mass. 156, 158, 87 N.E. 189. plaintiff's intestate was engaged with his companions in the wrongful project of 'teasing' and 'mocking' a Chinaman at......