Treen v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.

149 N.E. 625, 253 Mass. 605, 1925 Mass. LEXIS 1323
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided November 23, 1925·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Rugg, C.J.

There was evidence tending to show that the plaintiff, while walking on the "reserved space” in Huntington Avenue in Boston, where there was neither a break nor cross walk, toward a white post with the purpose there to become a passenger of the defendant, was struck by one of the defendant’s cars and injured. When Huntington Avenue was laid out, this space was specially reserved under St. 1894, c. 324, for street railway track location. The case at bar is governed by Crowell v.- Boston Elevated Railway, 234 Mass. 393, where it was held that, under similar circumstances, the traveller was at most' a bare licensee as to the [606] defendant, which owed her no duty except to refrain from wanton or reckless conduct. The differences between that case and the present one are immaterial and do not call for the application of a different principle.

Exceptions sustained.

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

Treen v. Boston Elevated Railway Co., 149 N.E. 625, 253 Mass. 605, 1925 Mass. LEXIS 1323 (Mass. 1925).

149 N.E. 625 (Treen v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sears v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
47 N.E.2d 282 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1943)
Tobias v. Bishop
3 Mass. App. Div. 163 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1938)
Pritchard v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
5 N.E.2d 29 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1936)
Herman v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
176 N.E. 180 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1931)
LaBelle v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
265 Mass. 482 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1929)
Fernald v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
156 N.E. 692 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1927)