Murphy v. Worcester Consolidated Street Railway Co.

225 Mass. 264
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedNovember 29, 1916
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 225 Mass. 264 (Murphy v. Worcester Consolidated 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
Murphy v. Worcester Consolidated Street Railway Co., 225 Mass. 264 (Mass. 1916).

Opinion

Braley, J.

The question of the due care of the plaintiff’s intestate was for the jury. St. 1914, c. 553. Nye v. Louis K. Liggett Co. 224 Mass. 401.

We also are of opinion that there was evidence for the consideration by the jury of the defendant’s negligence. The accident happened in broad daylight, and they would have been warranted in finding that the defendant’s motorman from a point seven hundred and eighty-five feet distant from the place of the collision had an unobstructed, continuous view of the street and of the intersecting driveway over which the slowly moving disc harrow drawn by two horses and driven by the intestate was passing making a “terrible noise” as it approached the track. It was open to them to find further that as the car approached no gong was rung or whistle sounded, and that its momentum or speed was such that upon striking the harrow just back of the horses the pole was broken, the brace and seat whereon the intestate was riding were bent, his body was run over, mangled “and carried a distance of over one hundred and five feet and less than one hundred and twenty feet” before the car stopped. The motorman was bound to use ordinary care to avoid coming into collision with other travellers lawfully using the public ways, with whom the intestate must be classed. If under all the conditions the jury were satisfied that by the use of due diligence the motorman should have seen the team coming down the driveway on to the track, and that by slackening speed or by giving warning of the approach of the car or by application of the brakes, the accident could have been averted, the defendant is responsible in damages for the negligence of its servant. Horsman v. Brockton & Plymouth Street Railway, 205 Mass. 519,523. Nelson v. Old Colony Street Railway, 208 Mass. 159. Berry v. Newton & Boston Street Railway, 209 Mass. 100,101, 102, and cases cited.

Exceptions sustained.

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

Related

Goulding v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
159 N.E. 452 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1928)
Burns v. Oliver Whyte Co.
121 N.E. 401 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1919)
Boyle v. Worcester Consolidated Street Railway Co.
231 Mass. 184 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1918)
Sughrue v. Bay State Street Railway Co.
119 N.E. 660 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1918)
Doherty v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford Railroad
118 N.E. 281 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1918)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
225 Mass. 264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-worcester-consolidated-street-railway-co-mass-1916.