Savickas v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 28 June 1921
• Citation: 239 Mass. 226,132 N.E. 29
• Parties: SAVICKAS v. BOSTON ELEVATED RY. CO. (two cases).
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

239 Mass. 226

132 N.E. 29

SAVICKAS

v.BOSTON ELEVATED RY. CO. (two cases).

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

June 28, 1921.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; J. F. Quinn, Judge.

Two actions, one by Amelia Savickas, by next friend, and the other by Anthony Savickas, against the Boston Elevated Railway Company. A verdict was directed for the defendant in each case, and plaintiffs bring exceptions. Exceptions overruled.

The first action was by a minor child for injury, and the second action by her father for medical expenses. Plaintiff, with her father and mother, were waiting for one of defendant's cars at a stopping place near an entrance to a park, at which there was no station or platform, and passengers boarded cars from a public street. There was evidence that a crowd was waiting for the car, and that as it was coming to a stop plaintiff was pushed by the crowd, so that her foot was caught under the wheel, and she was otherwise injured.

Wilfred B. Keenan, of Boston, for plaintiffs.

Fletcher Ranney, of Boston, for defendant.

CROSBY, J.

The first action is brought to recover for personal injuries received by a child, who at the time of the accident was four and one half years old. She will hereafter be referred to as the plaintiff. The second action is brought by the father of the child to recover for medical expenses incurred by reason of her injuries.

On the day of the accident the plaintiff accompanied by her father and mother was at a white post near the corner of Blue Hill avenue and Charlotte street in Boston, for the purpose of boarding a north-bound electric car of the defendant; at that time there was a large number of people present who were also intending to take a car bound in the same direction. An open car approached slowly from the south; as it was coming to a stop at the white post the crowd pressed forward and the plaintiff was pushed down and her left foot caught under the right forward wheel; the car stopped almost immediately and her foot was released by moving the car slightly backward. The plaintiff's mother testified that, just before the accident, she had hold of the plaintiff with her right hand and that as the car was coming to a stop she took hold of the handle of the car before it stopped with her left hand; that as the car was about to stop the conductor called out ‘All get in,’ or words to that effect, and raised the side bar; that her hat was partly knocked off by the crowd and that the plaintiff was pushed and fell down.

[1][2] It is well settled that it is the duty of a street railway company to protect its passengers from injuries resulting from the misconduct of other passengers, so far as in the circumstances reasonably might be anticipated and guarded against. Kuhlen v. Boston & Northern St....