Saunders v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
This text of 103 N.E. 779 (Saunders 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.
Opinion
The plaintiff was a robust, healthy unmarried woman, and thirty-seven years old at the time of the accident. She had her left foot on the floor of the body of the car, resting her weight on it, and was in the act of raising her right foot from the vestibule floor when the conductor gave the starting signal. That, it was not negligence on his part to start the car when he did is [356]*356settled by the similar cases of Sauvan v. Citizens’ Electric Street Railway, 197 Mass. 176, Flanagan v. Boston Elevated Railway, ante, 337, Martin v. Boston Elevated Railway, post, 361.
And there is no evidence that the motorman started the car negligently. The plaintiff’s right shoulder and elbow struck the woodwork of the door; but no other passenger was disturbed, although some were standing. The record discloses nothing more than the movement usually incident to the starting of an electric car. Work v. Boston Elevated Railway, 207 Mass. 447.
Exceptions overruled.
This case was decided on the same day that the cases of Flanagan •and Martin were decided.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
103 N.E. 779, 216 Mass. 355, 1914 Mass. LEXIS 1089, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saunders-v-boston-elevated-railway-co-mass-1914.