Doyle v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Doyle v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

325 N.E.2d 301, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 726

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedMarch 26, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 325 N.E.2d 301 (Doyle 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

Doyle v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, 325 N.E.2d 301, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 726 (Mass. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an action of tort for personal injuries incurred by the plaintiff when struck by the defendant’s streetcar. An auditor found that the operator of the streetcar was not negligent but that the plaintiff was. The case was subsequently tried to a jury, who returned a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant excepted to the denial of its motion for a directed verdict. There was evidence from which the jury could have found that the defendant’s streetcar was-traveling on the inbound track of a double track line when the operator observed the plaintiff near the street curbing to the operator’s left, that the operator next observed the plaintiff on or near the outbound track and that the operator then sounded a bell warning and made a hand signal for the plaintiff to cross in front of the streetcar. It was for the jury to determine the negligence of either or both of the actors. Compare Cuddy v. Boston Elev. Ry. 208 Mass. 134, 135-136 (1911); Sullivan v. Boston & Maine Ry. 242 Mass. 188, 192 (1922). Contrast Hebert v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Authy. 1 Mass. App. Ct. 670 (1974). The judge’s charge as to the prima facie effect of the auditor’s report was appropriate and proper. G. L. c. 221, § 56, as then in effect.

Judgment on the verdict.

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

This is an action of tort for personal injuries incurred by the plaintiff when struck by the defendant’s streetcar. An auditor found that the operator of the streetcar was not negligent but that the plaintiff was. The case was subsequently tried to a jury, who returned a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant excepted to the denial of its motion for a directed verdict. There was evidence from which the jury could have found that the defendant’s streetcar was-traveling on the inbound track of a double track line when the operator observed the plaintiff near the street curbing to the operator’s left, that the operator next observed the plaintiff on or near the outbound track and that the operator then sounded a bell warning and made a hand signal for the plaintiff to cross in front of the streetcar. It was for the jury to determine the negligence of either or both of the actors. Compare Cuddy v. Boston Elev. Ry. 208 Mass. 134, 135-136 (1911); Sullivan v. Boston & Maine Ry. 242 Mass. 188, 192 (1922). Contrast Hebert v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Authy. 1 Mass. App. Ct. 670 (1974). The judge’s charge as to the prima facie effect of the auditor’s report was appropriate and proper. G. L. c. 221, § 56, as then in effect.

Judgment on the verdict.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

325 N.E.2d 301, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 726, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doyle-v-massachusetts-bay-transportation-authority-massappct-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack