O'Callaghan v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.

249 Mass. 43
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMay 19, 1924
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 249 Mass. 43 (O'Callaghan 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
O'Callaghan v. Boston Elevated Railway Co., 249 Mass. 43 (Mass. 1924).

Opinion

Carroll, J.

This action is to recover for the death of the plaintiff’s intestate, who was killed, about nine o’clock in the morning February 27, 1921, by reason of being struck by an electric car operated by the defendant on Beacon Street, Somerville. A witness palled by the plaintiff, who “ saw about all there was of the occurrence,” testified he was standing on Beacon Street waiting for an inbound car and saw the plaintiff’s intestate coming out of Kent Street ” and continuing across Beacon Street; that when she stepped from the curb to cross Beacon Street the electric car was about two hundred feet distant; that when it struck the intestate it was moving on Beacon Street at the rate of twenty-five miles an hour, and went about two hundred feet after it struck her. The witness stated he was “ watching the girl [the plaintiff’s intestate] the instant she stepped down off the sidewalk ” and until she was struck, but did not see her look toward the approaching car and so far as he knew she was looking straight ahead.” There was evidence that no bell was sounded.

From the undisputed facts shown in this case, it appears that the plaintiff’s intestate walked across the street when the approaching car was in full view, without looking and without taking any precautions for her safety. The evidence of the plaintiff’s witness shows that the intestate was not in the exercise of due care. G. L. c. 231, § 85, does not help the plaintiff. The case is governed by Duggan v. Bay State Street Railway, 230 Mass. 370; Pigeon v. Massachusetts Northeastern Street Railway, 230 Mass. 392, Sullivan [45]*45v. Chadwick, 236 Mass. 130, 137, Will v. Boston Elevated Railway, 247 Mass. 250.

Bagnell v. Boston Elevated Railway, 247 Mass. 235, Doyle v. Boston Elevated Railway, 248 Mass. 89, Conroy v. Maxwell, 248 Mass. 92, and Barnett v. Boston Elevated Railway, 244 Mass. 418, are distinguishable from the case at bar. The judge was right in directing a verdict for the defendant.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

Hebert v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
305 N.E.2d 869 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1974)
Weir v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad
162 N.E.2d 793 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1959)
Lydon v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
34 N.E.2d 642 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1941)
Fulton v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co.
21 N.E.2d 609 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1939)
Joyce v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad
17 N.E.2d 189 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1938)
Mosher v. Hayes
192 N.E. 313 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1934)
Daignault v. Berkshire Street Railway Co.
178 N.E. 653 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1931)
Murphy v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
160 N.E. 265 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1928)
Linnane v. Millman
159 N.E. 523 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1928)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
249 Mass. 43, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ocallaghan-v-boston-elevated-railway-co-mass-1924.