White v. Worcester Consol. St. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 22 October 1896 |
| Citation | 44 N.E. 1052,167 Mass. 43 |
| Parties | WHITE v. WORCESTER CONSOL. ST. RY. CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
W.A. Gile and George H. Mellen, for plaintiff.
Charles C. Milton and Herbert Parker, for defendant.
This is an action for running down the plaintiff. He had driven across the defendant's track from the right side of the road, in order to pass around a standing vehicle, which was in his way, and he was crossing back again to his proper side of the road, when his rear left wheel was struck by an electric car which came up behind him. According to the defendant's evidence, the accident was due to the plaintiff's stopping suddenly just in front of the car but the plaintiff testified that he did not stop, but was driving continuously around the other vehicle. Other details of fact were in dispute.
The defendant asked for an instruction that, if the plaintiff had an unobstructed view of the approaching car, and there was nothing to prevent the plaintiff from turning off the track the driver of the car had a right to assume that the plaintiff would seasonably turn off the track to avoid accident. This was refused, and we are of opinion that the refusal was correct. We do not suppose that the instruction asked was intended as a proposition of fact based on the practice and experience of the community. In some parts of the state, at least, it is well known that drivers of vehicles wishing to cross a track assume that electric cars will look out for them at least as much as they look out for the cars. But we suppose that the request was intended to embody a statement of the rights of electric cars irrespective of practice, and to put street railways on very nearly the footing of steam railroads. Whatever may be the law as to the latter, there is a great difference between the two cases. Electric cars are far more manageable, and more quickly stopped, than trains upon steam railroads. Their tracks are in the highway, where all vehicles have a right not merely to cross, but to travel. In view of the inability of the cars to leave their tracks, it is the duty of free vehicles not to obstruct them unnecessarily, and to turn to one side when they meet them; but, subject to that, and to the respective powers of the two, a car and a wagon owe reciprocal duties to use reasonable care on each side to avoid a collision. See Galbraith v. Railway Co., ...
To continue reading
Request your trial