Bettencourt v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Bettencourt v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

301 N.E.2d 692, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 847

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedOctober 3, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 301 N.E.2d 692 (Bettencourt v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bettencourt v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, 301 N.E.2d 692, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 847 (Mass. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an action of tort for injuries sustained when the plaintiff, after traveling as a passenger on a bus owned and operated by the defendant, disembarked and stepped into a depression in the public street. A jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. The only question raised by the defendant’s bill of exceptions [848]*848with which we concern ourselves is the sufficiency of evidence to warrant a finding for the plaintiff, which was raised by the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict and by its motion for entry of a verdict under leave reserved, both of which motions were denied. It is well-settled that “[w]hen a passenger steps from the car upon the street, be becomes a traveller upon the highway, and terminates his relations and rights as a passenger, and the railway company is not responsible to him as a carrier for the condition of the street, or for his safe passage from the car to the sidewalk.” Creamer v. West End St. Ry. 156 Mass. 320, 321 (1892). See also Tefft v. Boston Elev. Ry. 285 Mass. 121 (1934); Lee v. Boston Elev. Ry. 182 Mass. 454, 456 (1903); McManus v. Boston Elev. Ry. 262 Mass. 519, 521 (1928). In the circumstances of this case, therefore, the defendant was entitled to a directed verdict. The defendant’s exceptions to the denial of its motions for a directed verdict and for entry of a verdict for the defendant under leave reserved are sustained. Judgment is to be entered for the defendant.

Gerald M. Coakley for the defendant.

So ordered.

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

This is an action of tort for injuries sustained when the plaintiff, after traveling as a passenger on a bus owned and operated by the defendant, disembarked and stepped into a depression in the public street. A jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. The only question raised by the defendant’s bill of exceptions [848]*848with which we concern ourselves is the sufficiency of evidence to warrant a finding for the plaintiff, which was raised by the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict and by its motion for entry of a verdict under leave reserved, both of which motions were denied. It is well-settled that “[w]hen a passenger steps from the car upon the street, be becomes a traveller upon the highway, and terminates his relations and rights as a passenger, and the railway company is not responsible to him as a carrier for the condition of the street, or for his safe passage from the car to the sidewalk.” Creamer v. West End St. Ry. 156 Mass. 320, 321 (1892). See also Tefft v. Boston Elev. Ry. 285 Mass. 121 (1934); Lee v. Boston Elev. Ry. 182 Mass. 454, 456 (1903); McManus v. Boston Elev. Ry. 262 Mass. 519, 521 (1928). In the circumstances of this case, therefore, the defendant was entitled to a directed verdict. The defendant’s exceptions to the denial of its motions for a directed verdict and for entry of a verdict for the defendant under leave reserved are sustained. Judgment is to be entered for the defendant.

Gerald M. Coakley for the defendant.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 N.E.2d 692, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 847, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bettencourt-v-massachusetts-bay-transportation-authority-massappct-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack