Williamson v. Old Colony St. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 05 March 1906 |
| Citation | 191 Mass. 144,77 N.E. 655 |
| Parties | WILLIAMSON v. OLD COLONY ST. RY. CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Clapp & Glover and Harold Stearns Davis, for plaintiff.
Asa P French and Foster & Turner, for defendant.
This is an action to recover for personal injuries, resulting from collision between a barge, driven by the plaintiff, and the defendant's car. The accident happened on Hancock street in Quincy, at about half-past 8 o'clock in the morning of a clear day. Double tracks of the defendant's railway occupied the center of the street. The street was 44 feet wide between sidewalks, and was practically straight, with the view unobstructed for a distance of 1,800 feet in each direction from the place of the accident. The plaintiff was driving a four-horse barge filled with furniture. He was a steady man, 56 years of age, of good sight and hearing, and of may years experience in driving horses. The barge was without windows, and had a covered top with closed sides. The inside was completely filled with furniture, so that the plaintiff, from the driver's seat, could not look back and see the street behind him. The main body of the barge projected, on each side, over the wheels, so that its width above the running gear was six feet. The length of the team--wagon and horses--was 37 feet. The plaintiff was driving on the left-hand side of the tracks, because he preferred the macadam which was laid there to the stone pavement on the right-hand side of the tracks. He was driving at a slow trot, and being about the meet a two-horse lumber team, which was coming on the same side, he turned out to the right and determined to cross over to the right-hand side of the railway tracks. Accordingly he started to drive diagonally, at a long angle, across the tracks, when the plaintiff's car, coming behind him on the right-hand track, collided with the barge and caused the injury. The evidence tended to show that the car struck the barge between six and seven feet from the rear end of it. This car was drawing another one which was attached to it, and which had no motor. Besides the motorman on the front platform of the forward car, there was a motorman on the front platform of the rear car, whose duty it was to look after the trolley of the forward car and use the brake when needed in going down hill. The plaintiff testified that he drove, while crossing, at the same rate of speed as before, and that he was 'listening to see what he could hear,' and looking out for his team. He heard no sound of an approaching car, and did not know that there was one behind him, until his wagon was struck. The evidence tended to show that the wagon was lifted up, on the right-hand side, about a foot and a half, pushed 8 or 10 feet, and rolled over. There was testimony that the plaintiff's moving team made considerable noise.
We are of opinion that there was ample evidence to warrant the jury in finding that the defendant's motorman was negligent and that the plaintiff was in the exercise of due care. It was impossible for the plaintiff to see the car...
To continue reading
Request your trial