Cottrell v. Pawtucket Street Railway Co.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Cottrell v. Pawtucket Street Railway Co.

65 A. 269, 27 R.I. 565, 1906 R.I. LEXIS 45

DecidedMay 23, 1906

StatusPublished

This text of 65 A. 269 (Cottrell v. Pawtucket Street Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cottrell v. Pawtucket Street Railway Co., 65 A. 269, 27 R.I. 565, 1906 R.I. LEXIS 45 (R.I. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Douglas, C. J.

The plaintiff’s intestate at the time of the accident was a passenger on a small open car of the defendant, and occupied an end seat.

The evidence shows that she rose from her seat to attract the attention of the conductor while the car was in rapid motion, and swaying and rocking violently, as it had been for some time, and stood near the side of the car, facing the rear, until she was thrown to the ground when the motion was checked by the application of the brakes. She had one hand on the back of the seat on which she had been sitting, while the other hand hung by her side. She had traveled over this portion of the road before on the same day, and previously, and knew the condition of the track to be uneven so as to cause the car to jolt and sway. Upon this undisputed evidence the plaintiff’s intestate was not in the exercise of due care, and we think the verdict for the defendant was properly directed.

The plaintiff’s petition for a new trial is denied, and the cause is remitted to the Superior Court for judgment upon the verdict.

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

Douglas, C. J.

The plaintiff’s intestate at the time of the accident was a passenger on a small open car of the defendant, and occupied an end seat.

The evidence shows that she rose from her seat to attract the attention of the conductor while the car was in rapid motion, and swaying and rocking violently, as it had been for some time, and stood near the side of the car, facing the rear, until she was thrown to the ground when the motion was checked by the application of the brakes. She had one hand on the back of the seat on which she had been sitting, while the other hand hung by her side. She had traveled over this portion of the road before on the same day, and previously, and knew the condition of the track to be uneven so as to cause the car to jolt and sway. Upon this undisputed evidence the plaintiff’s intestate was not in the exercise of due care, and we think the verdict for the defendant was properly directed.

The plaintiff’s petition for a new trial is denied, and the cause is remitted to the Superior Court for judgment upon the verdict.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 A. 269, 27 R.I. 565, 1906 R.I. LEXIS 45, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cottrell-v-pawtucket-street-railway-co-ri-1906.