Roach v. Boston & Maine Corp.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Roach v. Boston & Maine Corp.

269 N.E.2d 710, 359 Mass. 753, 1971 Mass. LEXIS 972

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMay 5, 1971

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 269 N.E.2d 710 (Roach v. Boston & Maine Corp.) 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

Roach v. Boston & Maine Corp., 269 N.E.2d 710, 359 Mass. 753, 1971 Mass. LEXIS 972 (Mass. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an action for negligence in which the plaintiff excepted to the allowance of the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict at the conclusion of the plaintiff’s evidence at trial, and to the refusal of the judge to allow the case to go to the jury under leave reserved. The action stems from an incident in which the plaintiff was struck in the eye by a stone while riding as a paying passenger on one of the defendant's trains, causing him to lose the sight of that eye. There was evidence indicating that the window of the vestibule through which the stone entered had probably been left open by one of the [754]*754defendant’s employees and that had it been closed the stone would .have ricocheted. The plaintiff was standing in the vestibule because the seats in all the ears had been taken. The conductor who took his ticket, who had been employed by' the defendant for twenty-five years, did not close the window or tell the plaintiff to move into one of the cars. Although there was evidence that intentional stonings of the defendant’s trains on this route had been frequent for a year preceding the incident, there was no evidence that the plaintiff knew of them. There was enough evidence indicating negligence on the part of the defendant to warrant submission of the case to the jury.

Robert J. Glass for the plaintiff. Robert D. O’Leary (Philip J. McCarthy with him) for the defendant.

Exceptions sustained.

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

This is an action for negligence in which the plaintiff excepted to the allowance of the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict at the conclusion of the plaintiff’s evidence at trial, and to the refusal of the judge to allow the case to go to the jury under leave reserved. The action stems from an incident in which the plaintiff was struck in the eye by a stone while riding as a paying passenger on one of the defendant's trains, causing him to lose the sight of that eye. There was evidence indicating that the window of the vestibule through which the stone entered had probably been left open by one of the [754]*754defendant’s employees and that had it been closed the stone would .have ricocheted. The plaintiff was standing in the vestibule because the seats in all the ears had been taken. The conductor who took his ticket, who had been employed by' the defendant for twenty-five years, did not close the window or tell the plaintiff to move into one of the cars. Although there was evidence that intentional stonings of the defendant’s trains on this route had been frequent for a year preceding the incident, there was no evidence that the plaintiff knew of them. There was enough evidence indicating negligence on the part of the defendant to warrant submission of the case to the jury.

Robert J. Glass for the plaintiff. Robert D. O’Leary (Philip J. McCarthy with him) for the defendant.

Exceptions sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 N.E.2d 710, 359 Mass. 753, 1971 Mass. LEXIS 972, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roach-v-boston-maine-corp-mass-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack