Timms v. Old Colony St. Ry.
| Decision Date | 01 April 1903 |
| Citation | 66 N.E. 797,183 Mass. 193 |
| Parties | TIMMS v. OLD COLONY ST. RY. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Plymouth County; John H. Hardy, Judge.
Action by one Timms against the Old Colony Street Railway. A verdict was directed for defendant, and plaintiff excepts. Exceptions overruled.
A. F. Barker, for plaintiff.
Henry F. Hurlburt and Damon E. Hall, for defendant.
We need not consider in this case whether there was any evidence for the jury that the plaintiff was in the exercise of due care, for we are of opinion that there was no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover on either count of the declaration. The evidence is that the car was not going at an excessive speed, but was running along in the ordinary way, when the speed slackened, and seemed to slacken very suddenly, and there was a little jerk, and the plaintiff, who was standing near the edge of the rear platform, with his body half inside and half outside the line of the car, not holding onto anything, and with one hand in his pocket, pitched off, and sustained the injuries complained of. There is nothing in the evidence to show that there was any defect in the car or in the condition of the rails, and jerks in the motion of street cars are not unusual. As to the apparent sudden stopping, there is nothing to show that it was not caused by some obstacle appearing suddenly in front, such as a horse and wagon, or a person on foot, attempting to cross the track a short distance ahead. See Byron v. Lynn & Boston Railroad, 177 Mass. 303, 58 N. E. 1015, and cases cited.
As to the second count, the allegation is that the defendant, ‘by its servants and agents, so negligently and carelessly managed and operated said car, by the sudden, careless, and negligent stopping of the same, as to cause some object on the rear platform of said car to be thrown violently against the plaintiff with such force as to throw him from the car.’ We have already disposed of the gist of the allegation, namely, the negligent stopping of the car, and we fail to find any evidence that whatever struck him threw him from the car.
Exceptions overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cuddyer v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co.
...140, 150 N.E. 891. The plaintiffs were in no better situation where the cause of the stop did not appear. In Timms v. Old Colony St. R. Co., 183 Mass. 193, 194, 66 N.E. 797, 798, where a street car stopped suddenly with a jerk, it was held that a passenger could not recover without proof of......
-
Cuddyer v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co.
...was evidence in that case that "the car was stopped to let passengers get off the car and not to avoid a collision," and it was said that the Timms case did not decide the point left open, for in Timms case the stop "was of the kind which is incident to travel on electric cars." And in Bell......
-
Bartlett v. Town Taxi, Inc.
...be without evidence to support it. The burden resting upon the plaintiff to prove negligence was not sustained. Timms v. Old Colony Street Railway, 183 Mass. 193, 66 N. E. 797;McGann v. Boston Elevated Railway, 199 Mass. 446, 85 N. E. 570,18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 506, 127 Am. St. Rep. 509;Craig ......
-
Craig v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co.
...car, or because of cars ahead of it, there was no negligence on the part of the motorman. See in this connection Timms v. Old Colony St. Ry., 183 Mass. 193, 194, 66 N. E. 797, and McGann v. Boston Elev. Ry., 199 Mass. 446, 449, 85 N. E. 570,18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 506, 127 Am. St. Rep. 509. Exc......