Vincent v. Norton & T. St. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 25 November 1901 |
| Citation | 180 Mass. 104,61 N.E. 822 |
| Parties | VINCENT v. NORTON & T. ST. RY. CO. (two cases). |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Milton Bruce, for plaintiffs.
F. S Hall, for defendant.
These are actions for running down a wagon and throwing out and injuring one of the persons who were riding in it. The case is here on exceptions to a refusal to take the cases from the jury. It is suggested that there was no evidence that the place where the accident happened was a public way. This suggestion plainly is a mere afterthought, and discredits the defendant's whole case. We assume that tracks might be laid over private land belonging to the company so that it would be a trespass for others to drive upon them ( Farnum v. Railway Co., 178 Mass. 300, 59 N.E. 755) but of course such a case is very unusual, and in the absence of special evidence a jury would be warranted in presuming and finding that street railway tracks were laid in a public street. In this case the place was called Tremont St. in the city of Taunton, and it is spoken of as a highway in the bill of exceptions.
The wagon was a covered baker's wagon, and the rear of it was closed with drawers and boxes. It was not negligence to drive such a wagon in the public streets, even those containing street railway tracks. It was not negligent or unlawful to drive upon the tracks. The fact that the horse was walking makes the plaintiff's case no worse. As against a car coming up behind him the driver would have done his duty by getting off the track when he knew of its approach. Com v. Temple, 14 Gray, 69, 78. But the driver did not know of it. If the bell was rung those in the wagon testified that they did not hear it. They were not bound to keep an impossible watch upon the rear. See Benjamin v. Railway Co., 160 Mass. 3, 4, 35 N.E. 95. The defendant could not run them down from behind under any ordinary circumstances without negligence or willful wrong, and this they may be supposed to have known. There were no special circumstances in this case. The wagon was plainly visible in front of the car. There was sufficient evidence of the defendant's negligence and of the plaintiffs' due care. See Tashjian v. Railway Co., 177 Mass. 75, 81, 58 N.E. 281; Le Blanc v. Railway Co., 170 Mass. 564, 49 N.E. 927; White v. Railway, 167 Mass. 43, 44 N.E. 1052.
This case is not one of 'injury suffered by any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bliss v. Kershaw
... ... effect to reasonable implications, as has often been done in ... previous cases. Morrill v. Norton, 116 Mass. 487; ... Whitter v. Way, 6 Allen, 288; Buckley v ... Mitchell, 165 Mass. 106, 42 N.E. 557; ... Dalton-Ingersoll Co. v. Hubbard, 174 ... ...
- Kelley v. Biddle