Albee v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.

95 N.E. 110, 209 Mass. 6, 1911 Mass. LEXIS 887
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMay 18, 1911
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 95 N.E. 110 (Albee v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Albee v. Boston Elevated Railway Co., 95 N.E. 110, 209 Mass. 6, 1911 Mass. LEXIS 887 (Mass. 1911).

Opinion

Hammond, J.

While the plaintiff was crossing Boylston Street near Arlington Street in Boston at 8.30 o’clock P. M., in November, the rain falling heavily at the time and a very high wind blowing, she came into collision with the left hand corner of the fender of one of the defendant’s cars while it was in motion, and was injured. She testified that she looked and saw the car twice; once when she stepped from the curbstone which was about seventeen feet from the track, and once when she was about half way between the curb and the track; that the last time she looked the car was about one hundred and twenty-five feet away and coming slowly; that she thought she had time to get across and made the attempt. The evidence tended to show that she had got almost over the farther rail of the track when she was hit. She testified farther that the street at that place was substantially deserted, there being only this car and another car several hundred feet away from her approaching from the opposite direction.

[8]*8Upon all the evidence we are of opinion that the questions, whether she looked as often as she ought to have looked and as late as she ought to have looked, and whether she was justified in thinking that she had time to get over the track ahead of the car, as well as the questions, whether the accident was due rather to the failure of the motorman to slow up when approaching the plaintiff than to any proper lack of judgment on her part, and whether the motorman was negligent, were for the jury. See Hunt v. Old Colony Street Railway, 206 Mass. 11; Hennessey v. Taylor, 189 Mass. 588; McCrohan v. Davison, 187 Mass. 466. The case is distinguishable from Holian v. Boston Elevated Railway, 194 Mass. 74, and other similar cases cited by the defendant.

Exceptions overruled.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

McBride v. Middlesex & Boston Street Railway Co.
176 N.E. 185 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1931)
Cook v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
248 Mass. 142 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1924)
Scherer v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
238 Mass. 367 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1921)
Thompson v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
116 N.E. 810 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1917)
Adams v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
219 Mass. 515 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1914)
O'Brien v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
104 N.E. 442 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1914)
Bodin v. Duluth Street Railway Co.
136 N.W. 302 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1912)
O'Toole v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
98 N.E. 510 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1912)
Stone v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
97 N.E. 747 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1912)
Lunderkin v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
97 N.E. 743 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1912)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
95 N.E. 110, 209 Mass. 6, 1911 Mass. LEXIS 887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/albee-v-boston-elevated-railway-co-mass-1911.