Eustis v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Eustis v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.

91 N.E. 881, 206 Mass. 143, 1910 Mass. LEXIS 772

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMay 19, 1910

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 91 N.E. 881 (Eustis 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

Eustis v. Boston Elevated Railway Co., 91 N.E. 881, 206 Mass. 143, 1910 Mass. LEXIS 772 (Mass. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Rugg, J.

There was evidence from which it might have been found that the plaintiff, travelling in a horse-drawn vehicle upon [144]*144a public way and observing the law of the road, approached at a right angle the tracks of the defendant, and, when fifteen or twenty feet from them, saw a car at a standstill sixty feet or more away. Thinking that he might do so with safety, he started to drive across the tracks and was injured by the car striking his rear wheel. The case, therefore, should have been submitted to the jury under many recent authorities. O'Brien v. Lexington & Boston Street Railway, 205 Mass. 182. Hatch v. Boston & Northern Street Railway, 205 Mass. 410. Callahan v. Boston Elevated Railway, 205 Mass. 422. Carroll v. Boston Elevated Railway, 205 Mass. 429. Wright v. Boston & Northern Street Railway, 203 Mass. 569. Robbins v. Dartmouth & Westport Street Railway, 203 Mass. 546. Jeddrey v. Boston & Northern Street Railway, 198 Mass. 232. Stubbs v. Boston & Northern Street Railway, 193 Mass. 513. Halloran v. Worcester Consolidated Street Railway, 192 Mass. 104.

The chief argument urged in behalf of the defendant is that in some of its aspects the testimony of the plaintiff was so contradictory that it could not be true. But, whether any of this evidence and how much of it was worthy of belief was a question of fact.

In accordance with the terms of the agreement of the parties the entry must be

Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $500.

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

Rugg, J.

There was evidence from which it might have been found that the plaintiff, travelling in a horse-drawn vehicle upon [144]*144a public way and observing the law of the road, approached at a right angle the tracks of the defendant, and, when fifteen or twenty feet from them, saw a car at a standstill sixty feet or more away. Thinking that he might do so with safety, he started to drive across the tracks and was injured by the car striking his rear wheel. The case, therefore, should have been submitted to the jury under many recent authorities. O'Brien v. Lexington & Boston Street Railway, 205 Mass. 182. Hatch v. Boston & Northern Street Railway, 205 Mass. 410. Callahan v. Boston Elevated Railway, 205 Mass. 422. Carroll v. Boston Elevated Railway, 205 Mass. 429. Wright v. Boston & Northern Street Railway, 203 Mass. 569. Robbins v. Dartmouth & Westport Street Railway, 203 Mass. 546. Jeddrey v. Boston & Northern Street Railway, 198 Mass. 232. Stubbs v. Boston & Northern Street Railway, 193 Mass. 513. Halloran v. Worcester Consolidated Street Railway, 192 Mass. 104.

The chief argument urged in behalf of the defendant is that in some of its aspects the testimony of the plaintiff was so contradictory that it could not be true. But, whether any of this evidence and how much of it was worthy of belief was a question of fact.

In accordance with the terms of the agreement of the parties the entry must be

Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $500.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 N.E. 881, 206 Mass. 143, 1910 Mass. LEXIS 772, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eustis-v-boston-elevated-railway-co-mass-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack