Steverman v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 17 May 1910 |
| Citation | 205 Mass. 508,91 N.E. 919 |
| Parties | STEVERMAN v. BOSTON ELEVATED RY. CO. (two cases). |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Coakley & Sherman, D. H. Coakley, and W. M. Hurd for plaintiff.
R. A Sears and J. E. Hannigan, for defendant.
The defendant contends that verdicts should have been ordered in its favor, as there was no proof of physical injuries received by Mrs. Steverman, to whom we shall refer as the plaintiff, or, if the evidence warranted a finding to the contrary, the cause of action proved is not described by the allegations of the declaration. The plaintiff having been accepted as a passenger, the defendant became bound to exercise, in the management of its car, the highest degree of care required by the circumstances to protect her from injury during transportation. Marshall v. Boston & Worcester Street Railway, 195 Mass. 284, 81 N.E. 195. It is not easy to suggest, by way of illustration, incidents arising from the manner in which a car may be operated by electricity, more likely to cause passengers great apprehension of bodily harm, than the situation with which the plaintiff, without warning, or previous experience, was confronted. In substance, her description of what happened was uncontroverted. Upon taking a seat the car proceeded when, her attention having been attracted by a sensation of heat, she saw flames flash out from the part of the car where she was riding, and that her clothing has taken fire. If she at once jumped away from the danger, the jury would have been justified in finding that she acted from a natural instinct of self-preservation, and that the apprehension of the peril was none the less real because, after a fellow passenger 'clapped' out the fire in her clothing, it appeared that her dress and boots were only slightly scorched. The defendant, while introducing testimony of a flash, followed by smoke and a slight outburst of flame, causing the passengers to leave their seats, which they shortly resumed after the conductor made an investigation, offered no explanation of the explosion, and the plaintiff as the evidence stood had been exposed to a sudden and grave danger, for which the defendant could be found liable. Cassady v. Old Colony St. Ry. Co., 184 Mass. 156, 68 N.E. 10, 63 L. R. A. 285; Gilmore v. Milford & Uxbridge St. Ry., 193 Mass. 44, 78 N.E. 744; Carroll v. Boston Elevated Ry., 200 Mass. 527, 86 N.E. 793. By remaining seated, the fire might have spread to other parts of her clothing, becoming more difficult to extinguish, and even if the occurrence was of such short duration that she need not have moved, it was a question of fact whether she used ordinary precaution. It is sufficient if, with a reasonable anticipation of bodily injury as the situation then appears, a passenger acts on the urgency of the moment, and is hurt, although afterwards it may be plain that by mere inaction all danger would have been avoided. Cody v. New York & New England Railroad, 151 Mass. 462, 468, 24 N.E. 402, 7 L. R. A. 843; Gannon v. New York, New Haven & Hartford R. R., 173 Mass. 40, 41, 52 N.E. 1075, 43 L. R. A. 833; Hamley v. Boston Elevated Ry., 201 Mass. 55, 58, 87 N.E. 197. Nor was the declaration insufficient. If the plaintiff's injury was alleged to have been caused 'by means of fire being set to her clothing from an electrical heating apparatus of said car, or through the appurtenances of said car,' the presence of fire, from whatever source it may have sprung, preceded by an explosion, set in motion a train of uninterrupted events, resulting in the plaintiff's injury. Oulighan v. Butler, 189 Mass. 287, 292, 75 N.E. 726, and cases cited; Doe v. Boston & Worcester St. Ry., 195 Mass. 171, 80 N.E. 814; Miller v. Boston & Northern St. Ry., 197 Mass. 535, 539, 83 N.E. 990.
The defendant's principal argument, however, is, that the first, third, and fourth requests should have been given, as there was no evidence of external physical injury. Spade v. Lynn & Boston...
To continue reading
Request your trial