Seale v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
This text of 100 N.E. 1020 (Seale 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
There was no evidence of negligence of the defendant. On this question the case, so far as respects the curved platform, must be classed with Hilborn v. Boston & Northern Street Railway, 191 Mass. 14, and similar cases therein cited, and, so far as respects the crowded car and the consequent duty of the defendant to protect the passengers, with the type of cases fairly represented by McCumber v. Boston Elevated Railway, 207 Mass. 559. In this last case as well as in Glennen v. Boston Elevated Railway, 207 Mass. 497, the general principles upon which the liability of a common carrier to a passenger for injury caused by his fellow passengers turns are stated in some detail, and need not be here repeated. Reference is made to those two cases and the cases therein respectively cited on the question.
The plaintiff was not prejudiced by the exclusion of her offers of proof. So far as they bore upon the question of the due care of the plaintiff they have become immaterial; and so far as they bore upon the negligence of the defendant they do not change the legal result.
Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
100 N.E. 1020, 214 Mass. 59, 1913 Mass. LEXIS 1046, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seale-v-boston-elevated-railway-co-mass-1913.