Saunders v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.

103 N.E. 779, 216 Mass. 355, 1914 Mass. LEXIS 1089
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJanuary 9, 1914
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

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.

Bluebook
Saunders v. Boston Elevated Railway Co., 103 N.E. 779, 216 Mass. 355, 1914 Mass. LEXIS 1089 (Mass. 1914).

Opinion

De Courcy, J.

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.

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

Related

Mass Transit Administration v. Miller
315 A.2d 772 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1974)
Miller v. Mass Transit Administration
306 A.2d 261 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1973)
Wade v. North Coast Transportation Co.
5 P.2d 985 (Washington Supreme Court, 1931)
Seidenberg v. Eastern Massachusetts Street Railway Co.
266 Mass. 540 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1929)
Connor v. Washington Railway & Electric Co.
43 App. D.C. 329 (D.C. Circuit, 1915)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
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.