Niland v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.

94 N.E. 703, 208 Mass. 476, 1911 Mass. LEXIS 856
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedApril 4, 1911
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 94 N.E. 703 (Niland 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
Niland v. Boston Elevated Railway Co., 94 N.E. 703, 208 Mass. 476, 1911 Mass. LEXIS 856 (Mass. 1911).

Opinion

Rugg, J.

There was evidence tending to show that the plaintiff, while a passenger upon one of the defendant’s surface cars, was injured by its sudden stopping incident to a collision with an ice wagon, left unattended in the street. There was ample evidence to support a finding that the accident occurred through the sudden movement of the horses attached to the ice wagon which brought one of them without warning upon the track in front' of the car, and that the motorman then quickly stopped his car, which was not going at an excessive rate of speed. If these were the facts, the defendant would not be liable. Timms v. Old Colony Street Railway, 183 Mass. 193.

But the plaintiff testified that the track was straight for a considerable distance, that “ the ice wagon was not going ” and that the car struck “ some part of the ice wagon.” So far as the printed record goes, this seems to warrant a finding that the plaintiff was injured by the car running into a wagon stationary upon the track. It requires no discussion to show that this might be found to constitute a violation of that high degree of care which the defendant owed to the plaintiff as its passenger.

The case, therefore, should have been submitted to the jury. If in the opinion of the Superior Court the weight of the evidence was so strongly against the plaintiff as not to warrant a verdict in his favor, and the jury should make the mistake of returning such a verdict, the injustice could be corrected by setting it aside [478]*478on. motion. The practice in this Commonwealth and generally requires a submission to the jury if there is evidence proper for their consideration, even though the preponderance may appear so great to the trial judge as to require him (if requested) to set aside one or several verdicts rendered against such preponderance. White v. Boston, 122 Mass. 491. Bryant v. Commonwealth Ins. Co. 13 Pick. 543. Clark v. Jenkins, 162 Mass. 397, and cases cited. Aiken v. Holyoke Street Railway, 180 Mass. 8, 12. Lurton, J., in Mt. Adams & Eden Park Inclined Railway v. Lowery, 74 Fed. Rep. 463, 476. Taft, J., in Felton v. Spiro, 78 Fed. Rep. 576, 582. Exceptions sustained.

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

Related

Waldman v. Hergenrother
10 Mass. App. Dec. 131 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1955)
Hartmann v. Boston Herald-Traveler Corp.
80 N.E.2d 16 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1948)
Lubianez v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
79 N.E.2d 876 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1948)
Akelian v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
9 Mass. App. Div. 249 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1944)
Cuddyer v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
51 N.E.2d 244 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1943)
DeAngelis v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
23 N.E.2d 859 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1939)
Conley v. Town Taxi, Inc.
10 N.E.2d 74 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1937)
Westcott v. Doyle
2 Mass. App. Div. 427 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1937)
Donovan v. Donovan
200 N.E. 884 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1936)
Holton v. Shepard
291 Mass. 513 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1935)
Salem Trust Co. v. Deery
194 N.E. 307 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1935)
Lovell v. Lovell
176 N.E. 210 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1931)
Bartlett v. Town Taxi Inc.
160 N.E. 797 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1928)
Hicks v. H. B. Church Truck Service Co.
156 N.E. 254 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1927)
Warner v. Fuller
139 N.E. 811 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1923)
Farnham v. Lenox Motor Car Co.
229 Mass. 478 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1918)
McDonough v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
117 N.E. 836 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1917)
Higgins v. Bickford
116 N.E. 245 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1917)
Swan v. Justices of Superior Court
111 N.E. 386 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1916)
Niland v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
100 N.E. 554 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
94 N.E. 703, 208 Mass. 476, 1911 Mass. LEXIS 856, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/niland-v-boston-elevated-railway-co-mass-1911.