Singer Sewing MaCh. Co. v. Springfield St. Ry. Co.
Citation | 216 Mass. 138,103 N.E. 283 |
Parties | SINGER SEWING MACH. CO. SPRINGFIELD ST. RY. CO.; FEINBERG v. SPRINGFIELD ST. RY. CO.; FEINBERG v. SPRINGFIELD ST. RY. CO. |
Decision Date | 25 November 1913 |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
Chas L. Young, of Springfield, for plaintiffs.
Henry W. Ely, Jos. B. Ely, and Jas. D. Lennehan, all of Springfield, for defendant.
These are two actions of tort growing out of a collision between a wagon belonging to the sewing machine company and a car of the defendant company. The cases were tried together, and at the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence a verdict was ordered in each case for the defendant. The cases are here on exceptions by the plaintiffs to the ruling thus made. We are of opinion that the ruling was right in each case.
The accident occurred a few minutes past 6 o'clock in the evening of November 15, 1910. The night was dark, but the car had a strong headling. The driver of the wagon was killed.
As to the Singer Sewing Machine Company there is nothing to show that the driver of the wagon was in the exercise of due care. The circumstances relating to his conduct and under which the collision took place do not appear. The only evidence from which an inference could be drawn as to what the driver of the wagon was doing was that of a witness who after the accident observed the track of the wagon, and who testified that 'it went pretty near across the road, where it left the rail, right to the track of the car, right straight across the road, almost.' The only conclusion that could be drawn from this would be that the driver of the wagon drove across the road into or directly in front of the car. This conclusion is strengthened by evidence tending to show that it was the front part of the wagon that was damaged the most. There is nothing tending to show that the driver was in the exercise of due care.
The female plaintiff was a passenger and was thrown to the floor of the car by the force of the collision and received injuries from which she suffered a miscarriage. The car was a small one, and there was evidence tending to show that it was going 'fast, awful fast,' 'rolling, jumping, * * * running one way and the other, * * * jumping around and down, shaking,' as one witness, the husband of the female plaintiff, testified. The exceptions contain no direct estimate of the speed, and there was nothing except these epithets to show that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Zichler v. St. Louis Pub. Serv. Co., 30789.
...107 N.E. 933; Sandler v. Boston Elev. Railroad Co., 238 Mass. 148, 130 N.E. 104; Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Springfield St. Ry. Co., 216 Mass. 138, 103 N.E. 283; Froio v. St. Ry. Co., 142 N.E. 255; Niland v. Boston Elev. Railroad Co., 208 Mass. 476, 94 N.E. 703; Cumberland, etc., Transit ......
-
Zichler v. St. Louis Public Service Co.
......Boston Elev. Railroad Co., 238 Mass. 148,. 130 N.E. 104; Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Springfield. St. Ry. Co., 216 Mass. 138, 103 N.E. ......
-
Hawkins v. L.C. Jones Trucking Co., 2503
...(N.S.) 1076; Olund v. Worcester Consolidated Street Railway [Co.], 206 Mass. 544, 92 N.E. 720; Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Springfield Street Railway [Co.], 216 Mass. 138, 103 N.E. 283. A speed of 35 miles an hour, while prima facie evidence of a rate higher than is reasonable and proper, ......
-
Pigeon v. Massachusetts Northeastern St. Ry. Co.
...Boston Elev. Ry., 224 Mass. 93, 112 N. E. 488;McManus v. Boston Elev. Ry., 216 Mass. 191, 103 N. E. 301;Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Springfield St. Ry., 216 Mass. 138, 103 N. E. 283;Newburg v. Fitchburg & Leominster St. Ry., 219 Mass. 21, 106 N. E. 549;Itzkowitz v. Boston Elev. Ry., 186 Ma......