Friedman v. Worcester Street Railway Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Friedman v. Worcester Street Railway Co.

94 N.E.2d 780, 326 Mass. 795

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedNovember 2, 1950

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 94 N.E.2d 780 (Friedman v. Worcester Street 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

Friedman v. Worcester Street Railway Co., 94 N.E.2d 780, 326 Mass. 795 (Mass. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Exceptions overruled. This is an action of tort in two counts. In one the plaintiff, as the administrator of his wife’s estate, seeks to recover compensation for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by her while she was a passenger in the defendant’s bus; in the other the plaintiff seeks to recover consequential damages. The sole question for decision arises out of the plaintiff’s exception to the direction of verdicts for the defendant on both counts. There was no error. The deceased, a large, active woman, aged sixty-three, without any apparent physical incapacity, entered the defendant’s bus which was then standing on an upgrade. She was putting money in the coin box when the bus started up “quite suddenly” and she was thrown to the floor and sustained an injury to her back. The bus started “suddenly with a jerk”; it “gave a ‘snap’” which was like putting in the clutch of an automobile. There was no evidence of the state of her balance at the time or that she had any hold on any part of the bus. Nor was there any evidence that she was thrown any distance. It does not appear that her hands were encumbered. The medical evidence offered by the plaintiff to show that the deceased must have been thrown to the floor with violence did not rise above speculation and conjecture. The case is governed by such cases as Craig v. Boston Elevated Railway, 207 Mass. 548, Binder v. Boston Elevated Railway, 265 Mass. 589, Seidenberg v. Eastern Massachusetts Street Railway, 266 Mass. 540, Phinney v. Eastern Massachusetts Street Railway, 285 Mass. 207, and Bray v. Boston Elevated Railway, 303 Mass. 379, rather than by Gordon v. West End Street Railway, 175 Mass. 181, Hamilton v. Boston & Northern Street Railway, 193 Mass. 324, Yancey v. Boston Elevated Railway, 205 Mass. 162, McRae v. Boston Elevated Railway, 276 Mass. 82, Johnson v. Berkshire Street Railway, 292 Mass. 311, and the other cases cited by the plaintiff.

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

Exceptions overruled. This is an action of tort in two counts. In one the plaintiff, as the administrator of his wife’s estate, seeks to recover compensation for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by her while she was a passenger in the defendant’s bus; in the other the plaintiff seeks to recover consequential damages. The sole question for decision arises out of the plaintiff’s exception to the direction of verdicts for the defendant on both counts. There was no error. The deceased, a large, active woman, aged sixty-three, without any apparent physical incapacity, entered the defendant’s bus which was then standing on an upgrade. She was putting money in the coin box when the bus started up “quite suddenly” and she was thrown to the floor and sustained an injury to her back. The bus started “suddenly with a jerk”; it “gave a ‘snap’” which was like putting in the clutch of an automobile. There was no evidence of the state of her balance at the time or that she had any hold on any part of the bus. Nor was there any evidence that she was thrown any distance. It does not appear that her hands were encumbered. The medical evidence offered by the plaintiff to show that the deceased must have been thrown to the floor with violence did not rise above speculation and conjecture. The case is governed by such cases as Craig v. Boston Elevated Railway, 207 Mass. 548, Binder v. Boston Elevated Railway, 265 Mass. 589, Seidenberg v. Eastern Massachusetts Street Railway, 266 Mass. 540, Phinney v. Eastern Massachusetts Street Railway, 285 Mass. 207, and Bray v. Boston Elevated Railway, 303 Mass. 379, rather than by Gordon v. West End Street Railway, 175 Mass. 181, Hamilton v. Boston & Northern Street Railway, 193 Mass. 324, Yancey v. Boston Elevated Railway, 205 Mass. 162, McRae v. Boston Elevated Railway, 276 Mass. 82, Johnson v. Berkshire Street Railway, 292 Mass. 311, and the other cases cited by the plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 N.E.2d 780, 326 Mass. 795, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/friedman-v-worcester-street-railway-co-mass-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack