Field v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.

188 Mass. 222
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided July 1, 1905·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Knowlton, C. J.

The first of these cases cannot be distinguished from Willworth v. Boston Elevated Railway, ante, 220, and the decision of the second depends upon the same facts. The plaintiff in the first case had ridden on the elevated railway ten or a dozen times before the accident, and, although the car was crowded and she said the passengers were rushing to get out, she testified that “ there was the same rush that would ordinarily occur in an elevated train.” The evidence on the part of both the plaintiff and the defendant tended to show that the greatest space between the car and the platform of the station was not more than three and five eighths inches. There was no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Field v. Boston Elevated Railway Co., 188 Mass. 222 (Mass. 1905).

188 Mass. 222 (Field v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dahl v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.
223 N.W. 37 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1929)
Moulton v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
236 Mass. 234 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1920)
Rose Di Nora v. Rhode Island Co.
109 A. 706 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1920)
Knowles v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
233 Mass. 347 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1919)
Hogan v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
81 N.E. 198 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1907)
Hawes v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
78 N.E. 480 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1906)
Hilborn v. Boston & Northern Street Railway Co.
77 N.E. 646 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1906)